Alberto Timm, A History of SDA Views On Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration, 1844 2000, JATS

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 10/1-2 (1999): 486542.
Article copyright 2000 by Alberto R. Timm.
A History of Seventh-day Adventist

Views on Biblical and Prophetic
Inspiration (18442000)
Alberto R. Timm
Director, Brazilian Ellen G. White Research Center
Brazil Adventist UniversityCampus 2
Introduction
Seventh-day Adventists form a modern eschatological movement born out
of the study of the Holy Scriptures, with the specific mission of proclaiming the
Word of God to every nation and tribe and tongue and people (Rev 14:6,
RSV). In many places around the world Seventh-day Adventists have actually
been known as the people of the Book. As a people Adventists have always
heldand presently holdhigh respect for the authority of the Bible. However,
at times in the denominations history different views on the nature of the Bibles inspiration have been discussed within its ranks.
The present study provides a general chronological overview of those major
trends and challenges that have impacted on the development of the Seventh-day
Adventist understanding of inspiration between 1844 and 2000. An annotated
bibliography type of approach is followed to provide an overall idea of the
subject and to facilitate further investigations of a more thematic nature.
The Adventist understanding of inspiration as related to both the Bible and
the writings of Ellen White is considered for two evident reasons: (1) While
their basic function differs, Adventists have generally assumed that both sets of
writings were produced by the same modus operandi of inspiration, and (2)
there is an organic overlapping of the views on each in the development of an
understanding of the Bibles inspiration.
Terminology employed in discussing the nature of biblical inspiration is
often confusing. Such technical expressions as mechanical inspiration, verbal
inspiration, plenary inspiration, and thought inspiration have at times carried
486
TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

different meanings. Because of the various shades of meaning, it is important to
be aware of the basic understanding of those terms.
Thus, mechanical inspiration is usually associated with the theory that all
the words of Scripture, even down to the Hebrew vowel points, were actually
dictated by the Holy Spirit. This theory virtually negates the human element of
Scripture.
Verbal inspiration normally is understood by its advocates to mean the Holy
Spirit guided the writers not only in receiving a divine message but also in
communicating it, without completely eliminating the personality and the style
of the writers. The emphasis, however, is on the end-product of the whole inspiration process, namely, on the words of Scripture.
The term plenary inspiration points out that Scripture in its entirety is inspired, making no distinction between alleged inspired and non-inspired words.
Some authors prefer this term in order to distinguish their position from any
mechanical understanding of inspiration, which may at times be associated with
the term verbal inspiration.
Lastly, thought inspiration is proposed by others to indicate that it is the
writer who is inspired, the Holy Spirit thereby transmitting Gods thoughts to
the writer, who then chooses the proper words to express those thoughts under
the continued guidance of the Spirit.
It will become obvious from the following discussion that there are instances where some authors use terms without clearly defining them, taking for
granted that their meaning is common knowledge. This, however, can lead to
different interpretations.
The Millerite Legacy
Seventh-day Adventists inherited their early views of Scripture from their
former denominations and the Millerites. William Miller,1 the founder and main
leader of Millerism, had accepted the views of Deism as a young man in his
twenties. Miller at that time actually gave up his faith in the Scriptures as a
revelation from God to man because of some inconsistences and contradictions in the Bible which he was unable to harmonize.2 Thus, his questioning
of the Bibles inspiration was occasioned by alleged discrepancies in the Bible.
After twelve years (1803-1816) in deistic circles, Miller had a conversion
experience, after which he began a two-year period (1816-1818) of intensive
study of Scripture. His basic assumption was that if the Bible was the word of
God, every thing contained therein might be understood, and all its parts be
1
For a more detailed study of Millers view of Scriptures, see Steen R. Rasmussen, Roots of
the Prophetic Hermeneutic of William Miller (M.A. thesis, Andrews University extension course at
Newbold College, England, 1983), 16-36.
2
William Miller, Apology and Defence (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1845), 2-3. Cf. J. V.
H[imes], Memoir of William Miller, Midnight Cry, Nov. 17, 1842, [1].
487
JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

made to harmonize.3 Miller stated that at the end of his intensive Bible study
all the contradictions and inconsistences he had before found in the Word
were gone, and he felt a delight in studying the Scriptures which he had not
before supposed could be derived from its teachings.4
In his 1822 Statement of Faith, Miller expressed his conviction that the Bible is given by God to man as a revelation of God to man.5 In 1836 Miller
asserted that there never was a book written that has a better connection and
harmony than the Bible, which has a general connection through the whole.6
While dealing with some difficulties in the Bible, Miller even preferred to
blame its translators rather than to admit obscurities and inconsistencies in the
original text.7 In other words, Miller came to accept the full authority and inspiration of the Bible because he became convinced that there was harmony and
unity in its content. For him, inspiration affected the actual text of Scripture and
not just the general ideas.
According to Steen Rasmussen, Millers basic attitude towards the Biblethat in order to be the word of God it must be wholly clear, consistent, and
without contradictionsnever changed from his childhood till his death.8
When he finally concluded that Scripture was clear and consistent, he accepted
its ultimate authority.
Early Seventh-day Adventist View (1844-1883)
Sabbatarian Adventists kept William Millers high view of Scripture. James
White, for instance, stated in A Word to the Little Flock (1847) that the
[B]ible is a perfect, and complete revelation and our only rule of faith and
practice.9 The third article of the 1872 statement of Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs composed by Uriah Smith asserted similarly that the Holy
Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God,
contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of
faith and practice.10
3
Miller, Apology and Defence, 5-6.

Ibid., 12. Cf. [Josiah Litch], Rise and Progress of Adventism, Advent Shield and Review,
May 1844, 49-50.
5
William Miller, [Statement of Faith], Sept. 5, 1822, ASC; Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1853), 77.
6
William Miller, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, about
the Year 1843 (Troy, [NY]: Kemble & Hooper, 1836), 5.
7
See e.g., Millers lecture on Ezekiel 39:1, 11, in [William Miller], Views of the Prophecies
and Prophetic Chronology, ed. Joshua V. Himes (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1842), 67.
8
Rasmussen, Roots of the Prophetic Hermeneutic, 20.
9
[James White], in idem, ed., A Word to the Little Flock, (Brunswick, ME: [James White],
1847), 13.
10
[Uriah Smith], A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the
Seventh-day Adventists (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing
Association, 1872), 5, art. III. See also Fundamental Principles, Signs of the Times (hereafter ST),
June 4, 1874, 3; Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists, Words of Truth Series, no. 5
4
488

Apart from such concise statements about the authority of Scripture, not
much was penned by Seventh-day Adventists on the nature of its inspiration up
to the early 1880s. The major Seventh-day Adventist concern on the subject of
the Bible during this early period was to defend its divine origin from infidel
(deist) attacks.11 Such defenses of the Bible provide, however, insightful evidences of the early Adventist views on the infallibility and trustworthiness of
Scripture.
Moses Hull, a Seventh-day Adventist minister, made the first significant
Seventh-day Adventist response to infidel attacks on Scripture in his 1863 book,
The Bible from Heaven.12 Hull advocated the authenticity, integrity, and credibility of the Bible,13 insisting that nothing in the Bible contradicts any of the
sciences of physiology, anatomy, hygiene, materia medica, chemistry, astronomy, or geology.14
In 1867 the Review came out with a series of twenty-two responses to the
so-called self contradictions of the Bible raised by infidels against the Christian religion.15 Those responses dealt, for example, with such issues as whether
one woman or two went to Christs sepulcher (John 20:1; Matt 28:1);16 whether
Christ ascended from Mount Olivet or from Bethany (Acts 1:9, 12; Luke 24:50,
51);17 and whether 24,000 or 23,000 Israelites died by the plague in Shittim
(Num 25:9; 1 Cor 10:8).18
Another significant defense of the Bible was penned by A. T. Jones, a Seventh-day Adventist minister working in Oregon (who would become one of the
major protagonists of the 1888 General Conference session), through a series,
(Battle Creek, MI: [Review and Herald], 1897), 3-4; Uriah Smith, Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (hereafter RH), Aug. 22, 1912, 4; F. M.
W[ilcox], A Conference on Christian Fundamentalism, RH, June 19, 1919, 6.
11
One of the most influential deistic books of that time was still Thomas Paines The Age of
Reason. Being an Investigation of True and of Fabulous Theology (Boston: Thomas Hall, 1794).
12
Moses Hull, The Bible from Heaven: Or A Dissertation on the Evidences of Christianity
(Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1863). This
book was later on revised, expanded, and republished (in 1878) under the authorship of D. M. Canright. See D. M. Canright, The Bible from Heaven: A Summary of Plain Arguments for the Bible and
Christianity (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1878).
13
Hull, Bible from Heaven, 79.
14
Ibid., 168-69.
15
Editorial, W. C. G[rainger], and J. M. A[ldrich]. The Infidels Objection to the Bible, Answered, 22-part series in RH, June 18, 1867, 4; June 25, 1867, 20; July 2, 1867, 36; July 9, 1867,
52; July 23, 1867, 84; July 30, 1867, 100; Aug. 6, 1867, 116; Aug. 13, 1867, 132; Aug. 20, 1867,
148; Aug. 27, 1867, 164; Sept. 3, 1867, 180; Sept. 10, 1867, 196; Sept. 17, 1867, 212; Sept. 24,
1867, 228; Oct. 1, 1867, 244; Oct. 8, 1867, 260; Oct. 15, 1867, 276; Oct. 29, 1867, 300; Nov. 12,
1867, 332; Nov. 26, 1867, 372.
16
Editorial, Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 7, RH, Aug. 6, 1867, 116.
17
Editorial, Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 15, RH, Sept. 24, 1867, 228.
18
J. M. A[ldrich], Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 22, RH, Nov. 26, 1867, 372.
489

A Review of Paines Age of Reason, which appeared in the Review in
1880.19
That early Seventh-day Adventists regarded the Scriptures as infallible and
inerrant is evident from the uncritical reprint in the Review of several portions
from non-Adventist authors that fostered such a view. In 1859, for example, the
Review reprinted a large paragraph from Louis Gaussens Theopneustia,20 stating that not one single error could ever be found in the more than 31,000
verses of the Bible.21 Some paragraphs of John H. Pratts Scripture and Science
Not at Variance22 came out in the Review in 1880, declaring that the Holy Spirit
preserved the writers of the Holy Scriptures from errors of every kind in the
records they made.23 An entire lecture of H. L. Hastings on inspiration appeared in the Review in 1883,24 referring to the Scriptures as the transcript of
the Divine Mind.25
Sparse statements on inspiration can be found also in the articles and books
penned during that period (1844-1883) about the prophetic gift of Ellen White.26
Those statements, however, were more concerned about proving the inspiration
of her writings than in discussing the actual nature of inspiration.
Up to the early 1800s no clear discussion of the doctrine of inspiration is
found in Seventh-day Adventist literature. While responding to infidel attacks
against the trustworthiness of the Bible, Seventh-day Adventists demonstrated
their commitment to a view of Scripture similar to Millers. Such responses to
infidelity clearly show that early Seventh-day Adventists were convinced that
the process of inspiration preserved the actual text of the Scriptures from factual
errors and contradictions.
19
A. T. Jones, A Review of Paines Age of Reason, 4-part series in RH, March 25, 1880,
195-96; April 1, 1880, 211-12; April 8, 1880, 226-27; April 15, 1880, 244-45.
20
L[ouis] Gaussen, Theopneustia. The Bible: Its Divine Origin and Inspiration, Deduced from
Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, new and rev. ed. (Cincinnati:
Cranston and Stowe, n.d.), 257-59.
21
[Louis] Gaus[s]en, Perfection of the Bible, RH, Sept. 15, 1859, 134.
22
John H. Pratt, Scripture and Science Not at Variance; With Remarks on the Historical Character, Plenary Inspiration, and Surpassing Importance, of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis, 7th ed.,
rev. and corr. (London: Hatchards, Piccadilly, 1872), 286-88, 302.
23
[John H.] Pratt, Inspiration, RH, Feb. 26, 1880, 139.
24
H. L. Hastings, The Inspiration of the Bible, 2-part series in RH, Nov. 13, 1883, 714-16;
Nov. 27, 1883, 746-48.
25
H. L. Hastings, Inspiration of the Bible, RH, Nov. 27, 1883, 748.
26
See Witness of the Pioneers concerning the Spirit of Prophecy: A Facsimile Reprint of Periodical and Pamphlet Articles Written by the Contemporaries of Ellen G. White (Washington, DC:
Ellen G. White Estate, 1961); [Uriah Smith], The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of
Spiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868).
490

Focus on the Nature of Inspiration (1883-1915)
By 1883, Seventh-day Adventists had for about four decades been mainly
concerned with defending the divine inspiration of the Bible from outside infidel
challenges. However, some internal crises regarding the nature and authority of
Ellen Whites writings pushed Seventh-day Adventists in the 1800s into a more
thoughtful discussion of the doctrine. During that period two major questions
were raised: (1) Are there degrees of inspiration? and (2) did the Holy Spirit
dictate the actual words of the inspired writings?
Are There Degrees of Inspiration? Administrative problems and conflicts of
personality at Battle Creek College led Ellen White to send a few testimonies to
Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and president of the college board, reproving
him for some unwise decisions.27 Resentment against such reproofs was one
factor that led Smith to the assumption that not all Ellen White writings were
equally inspired. By the Spring of 1883 Smith was convinced that while Mrs.
Whites visions were truly inspired, her testimonies were not.28
It seems that to harmonize such quarrels about the trustworthiness of Ellen
Whites testimonies, George I. Butler, General Conference president, wrote for
the Review a series of ten articles on Inspiration,29 in which he sought to provide a biblical rationale for the theory of degrees of inspiration.30 According to
E. K. Vande Vere, if Butler could show that the Bible contained human elements, then by implication, the Testimonies contained many more human elements and could not be regarded as absolutely perfect.31
Assuming that inspiration varies according to the various forms of revelation, Butler argued that the Scriptures are inspired just in the degree that the
person is inspired who writes them.32 Since Scripture resulted from different
forms of revelation,33 according to Butler, there likewise had to be distinct degrees of inspiration, of authority, and of imperfection. For him the Scriptures
are authoritative in proportion to the degrees of inspiration,34 and are perfect
27
For a more detailed discussion of the subject, see Eugene F. Durand, Yours in the Blessed
Hope, Uriah Smith (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 229-246; Allan G. Lindsay,
Goodloe Harper Bell: Pioneer Seventh-day Adventist Christian Educator (Ed.D. diss., Andrews
University, 1982), 192-231.
28
U[riah] Smith to [D. M.] Canright, March 22, 1883, ASC.
29
G. I. B[utler], Inspiration, 10-part series in the RH, Jan. 8, 1884, 24; Jan. 15, 1884, 41; Jan.
22, 1884, 57-58; Jan. 29, 1884, 73-74; Feb. 5, 1884, 89-90; Apr. 15, 1884, 249-50; Apr. 22, 1884,
265-67; May 6, 1884, 296-97; May 27, 1884, 344-46; June 3, 1884, 361-62.
30
For a more detailed discussion of the subject, see Peter M. van Bemmelen, The Mystery of
Inspiration: (An Historical Study About the Development of the Doctrine of Inspiration in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with Special Emphasis on the Decade 1884-1893) (Term paper, Andrews University, 1971).
31
Emmett K. Vande Vere, Rugged Heart: The Story of George I. Butler (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1979), 66.
32
G. I. B[utler], Inspiration[.No. 1], RH, Jan. 8, 1884, 24.
33
See G. I. B[utler], Inspiration.[No. 2], RH, Jan. 15, 1884, 41.
34
G. I. B[utler], Inspiration[.No. 1], RH, Jan. 8, 1884, 24.
491

only as they are necessary for achieving the purpose for which they were
givento make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15).35
Such a theory of inspiration led Butler to suggest a hierarchy within the
biblical canon, in which the books of Moses and the words of Christ appeared
in the first and highest level; the writings of the prophets and apostles and a
portion, at least, of the Psalms in the second level; the historical books in the
third level; and the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the book of
Job in the last and lowest level.36 Beyond those levels, Butler pointed out some
specific passages (Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 1:16; 4:19; 7:7-40; 16:5-9; 2 Cor 11:21;
Phil 2:19, 23; 2 Tim 4:9ff) which he could hardly call inspired.37
Thus, under the assumption that different forms of revelation implied distinct degrees of inspiration, Butler ended with a hierarchy within the biblical
canon, and in fact even rejected some texts as uninspired.
Although the theory of degrees of inspiration was advocated outside Adventist circles,38 this was the first time such theory was advanced in an official
Seventh-day Adventist publication. There are indications that it was so influential that some people were prompted to almost completely disregard Ellen
Whites testimony at the 1888 General Conference session in Minneapolis.39
By the late 1880s the theory of degrees of inspiration continued to be fostered in some Seventh-day Adventist circles.40 In response to this, Ellen White
penned in a letter to R. A. Underwood, president of the Ohio Conference, that it
was shown to her that the Lord did not inspire the articles on inspiration published in the Review. Since to criticize the Word of God is to venture on
sacred, holy ground, no human being should ever pronounce judgment on
Gods Word, selecting some things as inspired and discrediting others as uninspired. She explained also that the testimonies have been treated in the same
way; but God is not in this.41
In a similar manner, the Senior Sabbath School lesson for January 7, 1893,
also denied the possibility of different degrees of inspiration, for the reason
35
G. I. B[utler], Inspiration.No. 9, RH, May 27, 1884, 344.

G. I. B[utler], Inspiration.No. 7, RH, April 22, 1884, 265-66.
37
G. I. B[utler], Inspiration.No. 10, RH, June 3, 1884, 361.
38
See e.g., Daniel Wilson, The Evidences of Christianity, 5th ed. (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1845), 1:278-89; Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Critical, Exegetical, and Theological (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1868), ix-x; Thomas H.
Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1846), 1:474ff.; [F. W.] Farrar et al., Inspiration: A Clerical
Symposium on In What Sense, and Within What Limits, Is the Bible the Word of God? 2d ed.
(London: James Nisbet & Co., 1885), 137-54, 202-42.
39
See George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle
over Righteousness by Faith (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1989), 85-91.
40
See e.g., M. H. Browns motion in General Conference Proceedings, RH, Nov. 25, 1884,
745; Ellen G. White to R. A. Underwood, Jan. 18, 1889, EGWRC-AU.
41
E. G. White to R. A. Underwood, Jan. 18, 1889, EGWRC-AU.
36
492

that such a view destroys the authority of Gods word and gives to each one a
Bible made by himself.42
Did the Holy Spirit Dictate the Actual Words? Another discussion that engaged Seventh-day Adventists during the period under consideration
(1883-1915) concerned whether the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of inspired writings.
A partial response to this issue came from the 1883 General Conference
Session, which suggested a grammatical revision of Ellen Whites Testimonies
for the Church.43 At that time the General Conference appointed a committee of
five individualsW. C. White (chair), Uriah Smith, J. H. Waggoner, S. N.
Haskell, and George I. Butlerto supervise that revision. The rationale for such
a revision was stated as follows:
Whereas, Many of these testimonies were written under the most
unfavorable circumstances, the writer being too heavily pressed with
anxiety and labor to devote critical thought to the grammatical perfection of the writings, and they were printed in such haste as to allow these imperfections to pass uncorrected; and
Whereas, We believe the light given by God to his servants is by
the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting the thoughts, and not
(except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed; therefore
Resolved, That in the republication of these volumes such verbal
changes be made as to remove the above-named imperfections, as far
as possible, without in any measure changing the thought.44
While opposing the theory of mechanical inspiration, the motion did not
mention any factual error in the content of the Testimonies. Only grammatical
imperfections should be corrected, without changing the thought in any
measure.
George W. Morse likewise opposed the theory of mechanical inspiration
when he stated in the Review of March 7, 1888, that by the inspiration of the
Scriptures is not meant the inspiration of the words and phrases, but the general
purpose and use of the same.45
Uriah Smith, who had been a member of the committee for revising the
Testimonies, proposed, however, a week later (March 13), a via-media solution
to the tensions between the theories of mechanical inspiration and thought inspiration. In an article in the Review he suggested that if the words were spoken
directly by the Lord, then the words are inspired. If the words did not come
directly from the Lord, then the words may not be inspired, but only the
42
Sabbath School Lessons for Senior Classes, no. 98 (1st quarter, 1893), 9.
For further study of the revision of Ellen Whites Testimonies, see Jerry Allen Moon, W. C.
White and Ellen G. White: The Relationship between the Prophet and Her Son, Andrews University
Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, Vol. 19 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1993), 122-29.
44
General Conference Proceedings, RH, Nov. 27, 1883, 741-42.
45
G. W. Morse, Scripture Questions, RH, March 6, 1888, 155.
43
493

ideas, the facts, the truth, which those words convey.46 I have not been able to
locate any specific reaction to this article.
Leaning evidently towards a more mechanical view of inspiration, D. M.
Canright, ex-Seventh-day Adventist minister and writer, began to attack the inspiration of Ellen Whites writings after he left the Seventh-day Adventists in
early 1887. Already in the 1888 edition of his book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced,47 Canright stated that Ellen White was not inspired because, among
other things, (1) she herself changed the wording of previous drafts of her own
writings; (2) she incorporated suggestions from her husband and secretaries in
the process of correcting the grammar and improving the style of her writings;
and (3) she often copied without credit or sign of quotation from other
non-inspired authors.48
Meanwhile, several Seventh-day Adventist authors stressed that the process
of inspiration had actually exercised a controlling influence on the whole writing
of Scripture. In 1890, for instance, it was stated in the Signs of the Times that
the New Testament does not speak of inspiration as being given to men,
or of men being inspired. It was the writings which were inspired, or,
literally, God-breathed. The New Testament declares this repeatedly
of the Old Testament. See 2 Tim 3:15, 16; Acts 1:16; Heb 3:7; 1 Peter
1:11. Peter classes Pauls writings with the Scriptures, and Paul declares that his words were given by the Spirit of God. 2 Peter 3:16; 1
Cor 2:13.49
In 1905 The Beacon Light, by Robert Hare, a Seventh-day Adventist minister and writer working in Melbourne, Australia, came off the press with a
quotation from James Hamilton,50 stating that in theopneustic Scripture we
have a book, every sentence of which is truly human, and yet every sentence of
which is truly divine.51
While denying the verbal inspiration of translations, the Signs of the
Times in 1909 emphasized the verbal inspiration of the words of Scripture in the
original Hebrew, Chaldaic [Aramaic], and Greek languages. These words, it
was stated, were the words inspired by the Spirit of God.52
46
[Uriah Smith], Which Are Revealed, Words or Ideas?, RH, March 13, 1888, 168-69.
D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced: After an Experience of Twenty-eight
Years by a Prominent Minister and Writer of that Faith (Kalamazoo, [MI]: Kalamazoo Publishing
Co., 1888). Some historians, unaware of this edition, mention 1889 as the year when this book was
first published.
48
Ibid., 44-45.
49
Editorial, Questions on Inspiration, ST, Oct. 27, 1890, 531.
50
James Hamilton, The Lamp and the Lantern: or, Light for the Tent and the Traveller (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1866), 85.
51
Robert Hare, The Beacon Light[,] or Book of the Ages (Melbourne, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 1905), 19.
52
Editorial, 2976.Versions and Verbal Inspiration, Question Corner, ST, Nov. 17, 1909, 2
(italics in the original).
47
494

A more mechanical view of inspiration was stressed by Dr. David Paulson,
founding-president of Hinsdale Sanitarium, in a letter to Ellen White (1906).
Paulson stated in that letter: I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that
every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote
under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments.53
That Ellen White did not endorse such a mechanical view of inspiration is
evident from her response to Paulson on June 14, 1906. In that response she
clearly stated that neither she nor the other Seventh-day Adventist pioneers
ever made such claims.54
Further evidence that Ellen White did not endorse such a view of inspiration
was provided in the revisions of her book The Great Controversy for its 1911
edition.55 While grammatical revisions of her manuscripts had been previously
done, in 1910 she asked the help of W. W. Prescott in checking the historical
sections of this book. As an advocate of Gaussens views of verbal inspiration,56
Prescott felt very uneasy about having to suggest revisions to the writings of an
inspired prophet.57
This experience certainly became a decisive factor in leading Prescott to the
assumption that the Scriptures were verbally inspired but not Ellen Whites
writings.58 Also in the same context, W. C. White stated in 1911 that his mother
(Ellen White) never claimed to be authority on history and never laid claim
to verbal inspiration.59
By contrast, in the same year (1911) Milton C. Wilcox, editor of the Signs
of the Times, gave evidence of his agreement with Prescott on a verbal concept
of inspiration. In his book, Questions and Answers, Wilcox stated that the
53
Quoted in Ellen G. White to David Paulson, June 14, 1906, EGWRC-AU. (The words
every, any, and all are underlined in the original.) This letter was published in idem, Selected
Messages (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1958), 1:24-31.
54
E. G. White to David Paulson, June 14, 1906, EGWRC-AU.
55
Compare Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan: The Conflict of
the Ages in the Christian Dispensation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1911) with idem, The
Great Controversy between Christ and Satan during the Christian Dispensation, rev. and enl. ed.
(Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1888).
56
W. C. White letter to L. E. Froom, January 8, 1928, in Appendix C of E. G. White, Selected
Messages, 3:454.
57
See Appendixes A-C of E. G. White, Selected Messages, 3:433-65; Arthur L. White, W. W.
Prescott and the 1911 Edition of Great Controversy (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document, 1981);
idem, The Prescott Letter to W. C. White, April 6, 1915 (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document,
n.d.); idem, Ellen G. White (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982), 6:302-37.
58
W. W. Prescott, in The Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History,
29-30, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, July 30, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU; idem, in Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible, 21-28, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, Aug. 1, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU. Cf. Gilbert M. Valentine, William Warren
Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1982), 515, fn. 2.
59
Appendix A, in E. G. White, Selected Messages, 3:437. For a more detailed discussion on W.
C. Whites statement on Ellen Whites historical authority, see Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G.
White, 427-36.
495

original words by which prophet and apostle spoke were inspired. It was not
the person, according to Wilcox, who was inspired; it was the God-breathed
Word.60
Ellen G. Whites View of Inspiration. It was also during the period under
consideration (1883-1915) that Ellen White penned some of her more significant
statements on inspiration.61
For Ellen White the inspiration of Scripture is a mystery that parallels the
incarnation of Christ. She declares that as Christ was at the same time divine and
human (John 1:14), so the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the
language of men, presents a union of the divine with the human.62 So organically merged are the two elements throughout Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) that
the utterances of the man are the word of God,63 and no one should ever attempt to tell what is inspired and what is not64 or to point out degrees of inspiration.65
In opposition to the theory of mechanical inspiration, Ellen White asserted
in 1886 that the writers of the Bible were Gods penmen, not His pen. She
explained it further by saying the following:
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that
were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the mans words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy
Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of
the individual mind.66
In opposition to the theory of seminal thought inspiration, i.e. that only general thoughts were inspired, Ellen White explained that the scribes of God
wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work
60
Milton C. Wilcox, Questions and Answers Gathered from the Question Corner Department
of the Signs of the Times (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 12.
61
See e.g., E. G. White, Great Controversy (1888), a-h; idem, Selected Messages, 1:15-76;
3:28-124. For further study of Ellen Whites doctrine of inspiration, see also Leslie Hardinge, An
Exploration of the Philosophy of Inspiration in the Writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White (Unpubl. ms.,
n.d.), AHC; Raoul Dederen, Ellen Whites Doctrine of Scripture, supplement to Ministry (hereafter Min), July 1977, 24F-24J; Steven G. Daily, How Readest Thou: The Higher Criticism Debate in
Protestant America and Its Relationship to Seventh-day Adventism and the Writings of Ellen White,
1885-1925 (M.A. thesis, Loma Linda University, 1982), 122-39; Roy E. Graham, Ellen G. White:
Co-Founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (New York: Peter Lang, 1985), 140-84; James H.
Burry, An Investigation to Determine Ellen Whites Concepts of Revelation, Inspiration, The
Spirit of Prophecy, and Her Claims about the Origin, Production and Authority of Her Writings
(M.A. thesis, Andrews University, 1991); Gerard Damsteegt, The Inspiration of Scripture in the
Writings of Ellen G. White, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (hereafter JATS) 5 (Spring
1994): 155-79.
62
E. G. White, Great Controversy (1888), vi.
63
Ellen G. White, Objections to the Bible, Ms. 24, 1886, EGWRC-AU.
64
E. G. White, The Guide Book, Ms. 16, 1888, EGWRC-AU.
65
E. G. White to R. A. Underwood, Jan. 18, 1889, EGWRC-AU.
66
E. G. White, Objections to the Bible, Ms. 24, 1886, EGWRC-AU.
496

themselves,67 and that she herself was just as dependent upon the Spirit of the
Lord in relating or writing a vision, as in having the vision.68
The tension between those statements is harmonized in the following quotation from Ellen White:
Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my
views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing
what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by
an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.69
Although Ellen White recognized the existence of transmission errors and

difficulties in Scripture,70 I have been unable to find any instance in which she
mentioned specific factual errors in Scripture. As silent as the writers of the New
Testament had been in pointing out factual errors in the Old Testament, so was
Ellen White in regard to the total canon of Scripture.
The difficulties of Scripture were regarded by her not as an argument
against the Bible but as a strong evidence of its divine inspiration. While the
way of salvation is discernable even to the humble and uncultured, there are
in Scripture mysteries that challenge the most highly cultivated minds.71
Speaking about such mysteries Ellen White warned that
men of ability have devoted a lifetime of study and prayer to the
searching of the Scriptures, and yet there are many portions of the
Bible that have not been fully explored. Some passages of Scripture
will never be perfectly comprehended until in the future life Christ
shall explain them. There are mysteries to be unraveled, statements
that human minds cannot harmonize. And the enemy will seek to
arouse argument upon these points, which might better remain undiscussed.72
While admitting that the human language of Scripture is imperfect, she

still held that Gods Word is infallible and should be accepted as it reads.73
She stated, for instance, that in Scripture the history of Israel was traced by the
67
E[llen] G. White, Testimony for the Church, no. 26 (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1876), 5. Cf.
idem, Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views (Rochester, NY: James White, 1854), 8.
68
Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts [vol. 2]: My Christian Experience, Views and Labors (Battle
Creek, MI: James White, 1860), 293.
69
Ellen G. White, Questions and Answers, RH, Oct. 8, 1867, 260. See also idem, Selected
Messages, 1:37.
70
See e.g., Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts [vol. 1]: The Great Controversy, between Christ and
His Angels, and Satan and His Angels (Battle Creek, MI: James White, 1858), 117 (reprinted in
idem, Early Writings of Mrs. White [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1906], 220-21); idem, Selected Messages, 1:16-17.
71
Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1892), 126.
72
E[llen] G. White, Gospel Workers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1915), 312.
73
E. G. White, The Tasmanian Camp-meeting, RH, Feb. 11, 1896, 81.
497

unerring pen of inspiration with exact fidelity.74 She regarded the Bible also
as the unerring standard by which mens ideas of science should be
tested.75 Therefore, the Holy Scriptures are to be accepted, according to Ellen
White, as an authoritative, infallible revelation of his will.76
The fact that the finite mind is inadequate to grasp the infinite should in
no way discourage human beings from a thoughtful, reverent study of Scripture.77 She even pointed out that
as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations,
there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to
be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clear insight, discerns the underlying harmony.78
Noteworthy also is the fact that Ellen White made use of different versions
of the Bible in her writings.79 The use of different versions was also supported
by other contemporary Seventh-day Adventists.80 This is a significant point because later on the issue of the reliability of certain English translations of the
Bible would be raised in Seventh-day Adventist circles.81
74
Ellen G. White, Testimony to the Church, no. 28 (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist
Publishing Association, 1879), 171.
75
E. G. White, Science and Revelation, ST, March 13, 1884, 161; idem, Testimonies for the
Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1904), 8:325.
76
E. G. White, Great Controversy (1888), d; ibid. (1911), vii.
77
E. G. White, Steps to Christ, 123-35.
78
E. G. White to David Paulson, June 14, 1906, EGWRC-AU; idem, Selected Messages, 1:25.
79
For a more detailed study of Ellen G. Whites use of Bible versions, see Instances of the Use
of Various Versions in the Spirit of Prophecy Writings, DF 391-b, EGWRC-AU; Arthur L. White,
Mrs. Ellen G. White and the Revised Version of 1881-1885 and 1901 (Ellen G. White Estate shelf
document, 1953); Arlyn D. Stewart, An Analysis of Ellen Gould Whites Use of the English Versions in the Light of the Greek New Testament (M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological
Seminary, 1954); D[on] F. N[eufeld], Bible Translation Methods Examined5: Ellen G. Whites
Use of Various Versions, RH, Dec. 21, 1967, 12-13; William Larry Richards, Ellen G. White and
Her Use of Versions (Term paper, Andrews University, 1968); Frank W. Hardy, Ellen Whites
Use of Bible Versions Other than King James, supplement to Historicism, no. 23 (July 1990); Arthur L. White, The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible (Ellen G. White Estate shelf
document, 1953, rev. 1991).
80
See e.g., Editorial, The Revised Version, ST, July 21, 1881, 318-19; W. H. Littlejohn,
Scripture Questions: 82.The New Version vs. the Old, RH, March 20, 1883, 186.
81
See e.g., Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (Washington, DC: n.p.,
1930); A Review of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by B. G. Wilkinson (N.p., [1931]), AHC;
Benjamin G. Wilkinson, A Reply to the Review of My Book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated
(N.p., n.d.), AHC; Committee on Problems in Bible Translation, Problems in Bible Translation
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1954; D. F. N[eufeld], Bible Translation Methods Examined, 5-part series in RH, Nov. 16, 1967, 13; Nov. 30, 1967, 11-12; Dec. 7, 1967, 13-14; Dec. 14,
1967, 13; Dec. 21, 1967, 12-13; Ranulfo L. Raposo, History of Preservation of the New Testament
Manuscripts, the Development of Corrupted Texts and Its Impact Today upon the Sabbath (Term
paper, Andrews University, 1994).
498

That by the late 19th and early 20th centuries Seventh-day Adventists still
regarded the Scriptures as the infallible and trustworthy Word of God is evident
from their responses to higher criticism.82 For example, Charles M. Snow, editor
of Liberty magazine and associate editor of the Review, stated in 1912 that the
assumption that
the Word of God is inspired, but not infallible, is the reiteration on
earth of Satans challenge to God in heaven. When man sets himself
up as a judge of the words and works of God, the rebellion in heaven
is reproduced in the earth.83
As previously seen, it was during the period under consideration

(1883-1915) that Seventh-day Adventists began to face an internal crisis on the
nature of inspiration. Significantly, it was during that period that Ellen White
penned some of her most deliberate statements on the subject. These would be
studied again and again by Seventh-day Adventists as they continued the study
of the biblical teaching of inspiration after her passing on July 16, 1915.
Seventh-day Adventists and the ModernistFundamentalist Controversy (1915-1950)
Since its very inception in 1844 Seventh-day Adventism had developed under the stabilizing influence of Ellen White. From 1915 on, however, her influence was largely confined to the legacy of her writings. This transition contributed to the development of an identity crisis about the nature and authority of
those writings that had been obviously nourished by the revision of the Testimonies in the mid-1880s and of the Great Controversy in the early 1910s. That
crisis reached its climactic expression in the Summer of 1919 in the context of
the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy that challenged a large number of
North American denominations. While Modernists, under the influence of Darwinian evolutionism, challenged the historicity of the biblical accounts of creation and of other supernatural divine interventions, Fundamentalists were de-
82
See e.g., L. A. S[mith], The True Basis for a Genuine Revival, RH, Jan. 5, 1905, 5-6; idem,
Modern Criticism of the Decalogue, RH, Jan. 26, 1905, 6; C. M. S[now], The Higher Critic and
Gods Word, RH, Nov. 28, 1907, 4-5; idem, The New Salvation, RH, Nov. 28, 1907, 5; R. The
Age of Apostasy, ST, Oct. 6, 1909, 9-10; Editorial, The Drift in Christendom, ST, Feb. 8, 1910,
10; Earle Albert Rowell, Higher Criticism, 16-part series in ST, May 10, 1910, 6-7; May 17, 1910,
6-7; May 24, 1910, 6-7; May 31, 1910, 6; June 7, 1910, 3-4; June 14, 1910, 6-7; June 21, 1910, 6-7;
June 28, 1910, 5, 9; July 5, 1910, 4-5; July 12, 1910, 6-7; July 19, 1910, 5-6; July 26, 1910, 5-6;
Aug. 9, 1910, 7-8; Aug. 16, 1910, 7-8; Aug. 30, 1910, 5, 8; Sept. 6, 1910, 7-8; C. H. Edwards,
Facing the Crisis, RH, May 18, 1911, 3-5; Earle Albert Rowell, Higher Criticism the Enemy of
Seventh-day Adventists, RH, Nov. 9, 1911, 7.
For a more detailed study of Ellen Whites rebuttal to higher criticism, see also Peter Maarten
van Bemmelen, The Authenticity and Christo-centricity of the Pentateuch according to the Writings
of Ellen G. White (Term paper, Andrews University, 1978); Daily, How Readest Thou.
83
C. M. S[now], An Attack upon God, RH, Oct. 24, 1912, 11.
499

fending the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture in response to those challenges.84
Three significant events took place in mid-1919 in the development of the
Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of inspiration. Firstly, Francis M. Wilcox, editor
of the Review, published in the June 19 issue of that periodical a large report on
the Christian Fundamentals Conference, which he had attended in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in late May.85 Secondly, a Bible Conference for denominational editors, college teachers of Bible and history, and members of the General
Conference Committee was held in Washington, DC, from July 1 to 21, 1919.
Thirdly, D. M. Canrights Life of Mrs. E. G. White86 came off the press also in
July 1919,87 as the authors final criticism of Ellen White.
Of special significance were the sections of July 30 and August 1 of the Bible and History Teachers Council that followed immediately after the 1919
Bible Conference.88 Dealing respectively with The Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History89 and Inspiration of the Spirit of
Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible,90 those sessions were generally question-answer discussions chaired by Arthur G. Daniells, president of
84
For a representative exposition of the early Fundamentalist view of Scriptures, see The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, 12 vols. (Chicago, IL: Testimony Publishing Company, [191015]). Cf. J. Schoneberg Setzer, A Critique of the Fundamentalist Doctrine of the Inerrancy of the
Biblical Autographs in Historical, Philosophical, Exegetical and Hermeneutical Perspective (Ph.D.
diss., Duke University, 1964); Michael H. Blanco, The Hermeneutic of The Fundamentals (Ph.D.
diss., The Pennsylvania State University, 1990).
An insightful study of the broader early twentieth-century controversy between Fundamentalism and Modernism has been provided by George M. Marsden in his Fundamentalism and American
Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford UP,
1980).
85
F. M. W[ilcox], A Conference on Christian Fundamentals, RH, June 19, 1919, 2, 5-8. See
also Calvin Bollman, Christian Fundamentals, RH, July 3, 1919, 5-7.
86
D. M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E. G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims
Refuted (Cincinnati, [OH]: The Standard Publishing Company, 1919).
87
Carrie Johnson, I Was Canrights Secretary (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1971),
165.
88
For further study of the 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers Council, see
Molleurus Couperus, The Bible Conference of 1919, Sp 10 (May 1979): 24-57; Robert W. Olson,
The 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers Council (Ellen G. White Estate shelf
document, 1979); Bert Haloviak, In the Shadow of the Daily: Background and Aftermath of the
1919 Bible and History Teachers Conference (A paper presented at the meeting of Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Scholars in New York City, November 14, 1979); Bert Haloviak and Gary Land,
Ellen White & Doctrinal Conflict: Context of the 1919 Bible Conference, Sp 12 (June 1982): 1934; Valentine, William Warren Prescott, 504-19.
89
The Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History, in 1919 Bible
Conference transcripts, July 30, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
90
Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, Aug. 1, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
500

the General Conference. The focal points of these discussions were the issues of
verbal inspiration and infallibility of prophetic writings.91
Regarding the subject of verbal inspiration92 of Ellen Whites testimonies,
A. G. Daniells stated that neither Ellen White, nor James White, nor W. C.
White, nor anyone of the persons who helped to prepare those Testimonies
ever claimed it.93 Reactions to this position can be found in F. M. Wilcoxs
question to W. W. Prescott, Do you believe that a man who doesnt believe in
verbal inspiration of the Bible believes the Bible?94 Clifton L. Taylor, head of
the Bible Department of Canadian Junior College, remarked:
With regard to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies, I would say
that I have heard more about it here in one day than ever before in my
life. I think we have made a great big mountain of difficulty to go out
and fight against. I do not believe that our people generally believe in
the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies. I think that the general idea
of our people is that the Testimonies are the writings of a sister who
received light from God. As to verbal inspiration, I think they have a
very ill-defined idea. I think they believe that in some way God gave
her light, and she wrote it down, and they do not know what verbal
inspiration means.95
As far as infallibility is concerned, A. G. Daniells stated that it is not right

to regard the Spirit of Prophecy as the only safe interpreter of the Bible.96 He
argued also that Ellen White never claimed to be an authority on history or a
dogmatic teacher on theology97 and that she never regarded her historical
quotations as infallible.98 C. L. Benson, professor of History at Union College,
reacted to this position, inquiring:
If there are such uncertainties with reference to our historical position, and if the Testimonies are not to be relied on to throw a great
deal of light upon our historical positions, and if the same is true with
reference to our theological interpretation of texts, then how can we
consistently place implicit confidence in the direction that is given
with reference to our educational problems, and our medical school,
and even our denominational organization? If there is a definite
spiritual leadership in these things, then how can we consistently lay
91
A. G. Daniells, in ibid., 14-15.

For a more detailed study of the 1919 Seventh-day Adventist discussion on verbal inspiration, see Valentine, William Warren Prescott, 515, fn. 2.
93
A. G. Daniells, in Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the
Bible, 17, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, Aug. 1, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
94
F. M. Wilcox, in Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History, 30, in
1919 Bible Conference transcripts, July 30, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
95
C. L. Taylor, in Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible, 6, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, Aug. 1, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
96
A. G. Daniells, in Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History, 9, in
1919 Bible Conference transcripts, July 30, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
97
Ibid., 16.
98
Ibid., 26.
92
501

aside the Testimonies or particularly lay them aside when it comes to
the prophetic and historic side of the message? and place these things
on the basis of research work?99
The same issue was also raised by C. L. Taylor in the following words:
If we must lay aside what Sister White has said interpreting history,
or what we might call the philosophy of history, as unreliable, and
also lay aside as unreliable expositions of [S]cripture, the only natural
conclusion for me, and probably for a great many others, would be
that the same authorship is unreliable regarding organization, regarding pantheism, and every other subject that she ever treated
on;that she may have told the truth, but we had better get all the
historical data we can to see whether she told the truth or not.100
That the church leadership at large did not follow Daniells views of inspiration is evident not only from the fact that the records of the 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers Council were not brought to public
attention during the years that followed that conference,101 but also from the fact
that his views were not reflected in the content of the several books and pamphlets102 and of the Sabbath School quarterly103 published during the 1920s and
1930s in defense of the Bible as the Word of God.
During the 1920s and 1930s Seventh-day Adventists supported Fundamentalism in uplifting the trustworthiness of the Bible in the context of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy. That Seventh-day Adventists had historically
held to a view of Scripture that had much in common with Fundamentalism is
evident from their former responses to infidels and to higher criticism.104
Thus, William G. Wirth clearly stated that there could be no neutral ground in
99
C. L. Benson, in Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy as Related to the Inspiration of the Bible, 4-5, in 1919 Bible Conference transcripts, Aug. 1, 1919, fld. 5, EGWRC-AU.
100
C. L. Taylor, in ibid., 7.
101
The records of the 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers Council were
misplaced until December 1974, when F. Donald Yost found them. M. Couperus, The Bible Conference of 1919, Sp 10 (May 1979): 26.
102
See e.g., H. L. Hastings, Will the Old Book Stand? A Compilation from the Anti-Infidel Library and Other Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, [1923]); Carlyle B. Haynes, Christianity at the Crossroads (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1924); William G. Wirth,
The Battle of the Churches: Modernism or Fundamentalism, Which? (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1924); Milton C. Wilcox, The Surety of the Bible[,] Gods Multiplied Witness (Mountain
View, CA: Pacific Press, 1925); Frederick C. Gilbert, The Bible[,] a Twentieth-Century Book
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1927); Carlyle B. Haynes, The Bible: Is It a True Book? An
Inquiry into the Origin, Authenticity, History, and Character of the Sacred Writings of Christianity
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1927); Fannie D. Chase, The BibleBook Divine (Nashville,
TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1933); Carlyle B. Haynes, Gods Book (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1935).
103
Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, no. 152 (2nd quarter, 1933).
104
For a comparative study between Seventh-day Adventism and Fundamentalism, see Carl
Walter Daggy, A Comparative Study of Certain Aspects of Fundamentalism with Seventh-day
Adventism (M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1955).
502

the battle between Modernism and Fundamentalism.105 And F. M. Wilcox
added that Seventh-day Adventists, with their historical belief in the Divine
Word, should count themselves the chief of Fundamentalists today.106
On July 15, 1920, the Review published a report on the second Conference
of Christian Fundamentals, held in Chicago, Illinois. Leon A. Smith, literary
editor of the Press Bureau of the General Conference, reported that the conference affirmed its belief in the verbal inspiration of the Old and New Testaments
as first penned by the Bible writers. For Smith, all this was good.107
In 1919 S. N. Haskell, a Seventh-day Adventist evangelist and administrator, had already defined inspiration as Gods breath, using the vocal organs of
the prophet (cf. Dan 10:17, 19).108
In 1926 Benjamin L. House, professor of Bible and Homiletics at Pacific
Union College, devoted a special section of his Analytical Studies in Bible Doctrines for Seventh-day Adventist Colleges to the topic of The Inspiration of the
Bible.109 One of the first paragraphs of that section was a quotation from the
non-Adventist author William Evans,110 stating that since inspiration is God
speaking through men, the Old Testament is just as much the Word of God as
though God spake every single word of it with His own lips.111
Later on in the book, House defined more clearly his own concept of inspiration. He distinguished inspiration from revelation by postulating that while
revelation is the act of God by which He directly communicates truth to man,
inspiration refers to the divine superintendence which has been given in
speaking or writing all of the records found in the Bible. Therefore, all revelation is inspired, but all that is inspired did not come by revelation.112
Holding the view of Verbal or Plenary Inspiration, House rejected the
theories (1) of partial inspiration, for implying that the Bible contains much
that is not inspired; (2) of concept or thought inspiration, for leaving the Bible
writers absolutely to themselves in the choice of words they should use; (3) of
mechanical or dynamic inspiration, for not accounting for the different style of
the various writers and for the material secured from historical records; (4) of
105
Wirth, Battle of the Churches, 7.

F. M. W[ilcox], Forsaking the Foundations of Faith, RH, Nov. 28, 1929, 14. See also
George McCready Price, The Significance of Fundamentalism, RH, May 12, 1927, 13-14.
107
Leon A. Smith, The Chicago Conference of Christian Fundamentals, RH, July 15, 1920,
20.
108
S. N. Haskell, Bible Handbook (South Lancaster, MA: Bible Training School, 1919), 9.
109
Benjamin L. House, Analytical Studies in Bible Doctrines for Seventh-day Adventist Colleges: A Course in Biblical Theology, tentative ed. ([Washington, DC]: General Conference Department of Education, 1926), 60-69.
110
William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago: The Moody Press, 1912), 19445.
111
House, Analytical Studies, 60 (italics supplied in replacement to the original emphasis). This
quotation was still preserved in the 1928 edition of Houses book.
112
Ibid., 62.
106
503

natural inspiration, for denying the supernatural and the mysterious in the Bible; and (5) of illumination or universal Christian inspiration, for holding that
the Christians of every age have been inspired just the same as the Bible writers.113
According to House, the theory of Verbal or Plenary Inspiration holds
that
all Scripture is inspired, 2 Tim. 3:16, that the selection of the very
words of Scripture in the original languages was overruled by the
Holy Spirit in some [way]... , and that the writers did experience the
guiding and controlling influence of the divine Spirit in the choice of
material. He guided the writer even in the choice of what imperial
decrees, genealogies, official letters, state papers, or historical matters
he might find necessary for recording the divine message of salvation.114
Also in 1926, F. M. Wilcox penned that since it was the Spirit of Christ in
the prophets who testified through them (cf. 1 Pet 1:10, 11),
it was not David who spoke, not Isaiah, not Daniel, but Christ
speaking through them. Nor was it the instrument through whom the
message came that was inspired; it was the message itself. Indeed,
the prophets ofttimes failed to understand their own prophecies, and
with others had to search what God had revealed through them, to
find that salvation of which they prophesied.115
In 1927 Carlyle B. Haynes, president of the South American Division,

penned an insightful chapter on The Inspiration of the Book in his The Bible:
Is It a True Book? Haynes stated in this chapter that
the Bible is a divine revelation embodied in an inspired Book. By
revelation God makes known to man that which he could never know
or discover for himself. By inspiration God so guides and controls
man that his writing even of things not revealed is precise and accurate.116
According to Haynes, the Bible declares that God did inspire its writers
and writings. Since it does not tell us how He did this, we have nothing to
do with the method of inspiration, but we have everything to do with the fact
of inspiration.117 Haynes declared that although the words of the Bible were
not dictated to the inspired writers as a man would dictate to a stenographer,
113
Ibid., 66-68.
Ibid., 66.
115
Francis M. Wilcox, What the Bible Teaches: A Synopsis of Leading Bible Doctrines Setting
Forth the Everlasting Gospel as Revealed in Jesus Christ Our Divine Lord and Only Saviour
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1926), 8 (italics supplied).
116
Haynes, The Bible: Is It a True Book?, 67 (italics in the original).
117
Ibid. 70 (italics in the original).
114
504

the Holy Spirit mysteriously controlled the whole process by which the Holy
Scriptures were produced. Haynes explained that
when God inspired men to write, the personality of the writer was not
effaced, his style was not set aside. The Spirit of God infallibly
guided in the communication of divine truth from the writers own
vocabulary, and in his own particular style. Inspiration means that the
Spirit, by a mysterious control beyond our comprehension, but in
which we may and should believe, acted in such a way upon chosen
men while they were writing the books of the Bible, that they were
supernaturally guided in communicating the will of God. Their individual human personalities, their peculiar mental traits, and even their
forms and styles of literary expression were apparently given full
sway and liberty, and were used by the Spirit, and yet the product
was so controlled that it became the word of God, which liveth and
abidedth forever. 1 Peter 1:23.118
Although Ellen White and other Seventh-day Adventist authors had endorsed the use of different English versions of the Bible, in 1930 Benjamin G.
Wilkinson, dean of the School of Theology and professor of Biblical Exegesis at
Washington Missionary College, published his Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, advocating the reliability of the King James Version and blaming other
modern versions for being distorted by Modernist influence.119 Such blames
were responded to by a committee from the General Conference,120 to which
Wilkinson, in turn, replied.121
In June 1931 the Ministry reprinted several paragraphs from the nonAdventist E. Kretzmanns article Modern Views about Inspiration.122 This
reprint stated, under the title Valuable Quotations from Reliable Sources, that
all the thoughts and all the words of Scriptures were inspired by the Holy
Spirit. Not only is every word of doctrine true, but there is also no mistake in
the historical data offered, nor in any other point of divine or human knowledge. Since the Holy Scripture consists of words, if we do not accept verbal
inspiration, then it is senseless, nonsensical, to speak of an inspiration of the
Bible.123
The contemporary emphasis on the trustworthiness of the Bible was also reflected in the wording of the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. Instead of speaking of the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule
of faith and practice, as both the 1872124 and 1889125 statements of beliefs did,
118
Ibid., 76-77.
Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.
120
A Review of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by B. G. Wilkinson (N.p., [1931]), AHC.
121
Wilkinson, Reply to the Review of My Book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, AHC.
122
P. E. Kretzmann, Modern Views about Inspirationand the Truth of Scriptures, Princeton
Theological Review 27 (April 1929): 227-44.
123
Valuable Quotations from Reliable Sources, Min, June 1931, 20-21.
124
[U. Smith], Declaration of the Fundamental Principles, 5, art. III (italics supplied).
119
505

the 1931 statement came out referring to Scripture as the only unerring rule of
faith and practice.126 The Sabbath School lesson for April 8, 1933, referred to
Numbers 22:38 and Ezekiel 1:3; 2:7 in support of the idea that inspiration does
not leave a man to speak his own words.127
Also in 1933, an eighteen-part series by F. M. Wilcox came out in the Review, under the general title Testimony of Jesus,128 which appeared the next
year (1934) in book form.129 In this series Wilcox moved perceivably away from
his previous understanding of verbal inspiration. He argued that inspired writers
did not claim infallibility for themselves,130 and that Ellen White was not verbally inspired in the sense that she received the exact words in which her
thoughts were expressed.131
In 1935 C. B. Haynes, then president of the Michigan Conference, came out
with his 222-page book, Gods Book,132 expanding considerably the authors
previous arguments on inspiration.133 In this new book Haynes spoke of revelation as the informing process and inspiration as the imparting process. He
argued that as the information recorded by inspired writers not always comes
from supernatural revelation, so individuals who sometimes receive divine
revelations do not necessarily become inspired prophets (cf. Exod 19ff.).134
Haynes stated that in Scripture there is no mechanical dictation, but inspiration, which means more than an uninspired account of inspired thoughts.
For him, inspiration was plenary, by which he suggested that Gods inspiration
includes the form as well as the substance, and that it extends to the words as
well as the thoughts. Haynes justified his position saying that we cannot know
Gods thoughts unless we know His words.135
125
Seventh-Day Adventist Year Book of Statistics for 1889 (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald,
1889), 148, art. III (italics supplied).
126
1931 Year Book of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, [1931]), 377, art. 1 (italics supplied).
127
Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, no. 152 (2nd quarter 1933), 7.
128
[Francis M. Wilcox], The Testimony of Jesus, 18-part series in RH, July 6, 1933, 6-7; July
13, 1933, 9-10; July 20, 1933, 8-9; July 27, 1933, 8, 20; Aug. 3, 1933, 5-6; Aug. 10, 1933, 5-6; Aug.
17, 1933, 5-6; Aug. 31, 1933, 10-11; Sept. 7, 1933, 5-6; Oct. 5, 1933, 8-10; Oct. 12, 1933, 9-10; Oct.
19, 1933, 6-7; Oct. 26, 1933, 8-9; Nov. 2, 1933, 7-9; Nov. 16, 1933, 2, 7; Nov. 23, 1933, 4-5, 11;
Nov. 30, 1933, 10-11; Dec. 7, 1933, 5-7, 17.
129
Francis M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1934).
130
F. M. Wilcox, Testimony of Jesus, RH, Oct. 5, 1933, 8-10.
131
F. M. Wilcox, Testimony of Jesus, RH, Oct. 19, 1933, 6-7.
132
Haynes, Gods Book. In 1950 a 420-page revised and enlarged edition of this book was published under the title The Books of All Nations. No revisions were made in the main chapter on inspiration (chapter 18), except to the addition of some new paragraphs, which only expanded the
authors previous views of inspiration. See Carlyle B. Haynes, The Book of All Nations, rev. ed.
(Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1950), 232, 250-54.
133
See Haynes, The Bible: Is It a True Book?, 67-77.
134
Haynes, Gods Book, 136 (italics in the original).
135
Ibid., 138 (italics in the original).
506

Haynes argued also that the Bible writers required inspiration to produce
a record infallibly preserved from all error and mistake.136 He regarded the
Bible as infallibly accurate and precise not only in its historical accounts but
also in its predictions of the future.137 For him the facts of science and the
teachings of the Bible are in complete agreement.138
In 1940 Haynes even stated that Seventh-day Adventists are Fundamentalists in their understanding and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.139 In
1944 Walter E. Straw argued that no authenticated scientific fact has been revealed that was contrary to the teaching of the Bible and that no archeological
discovery has revealed truths contrary to the Bible.140
Also in 1944, a new edition of F. M. Wilcoxs Testimony of Jesus, with an
additional chapter on The Inspiration of the Bible Writers, came off the
press.141 It was in this chapter that probably for the first time Ellen Whites
Manuscript 16, 1888 (The Inspiration of the Word of God)142 and Manuscript
24, 1886 (Objections to the Bible) appeared in print.143 The second of these
manuscripts would be quoted frequently in later discussions of the Seventh-day
Adventist teaching of biblical inspiration.
Noteworthy, it was also during the period under consideration (1915-1950)
that some of the most significant Seventh-day Adventist studies in geology, biblical archeology, and biblical chronology appeared in support of the trustworthiness of the Bible. George M. Price,144 for instance, penned several books in
which he used geological data to support the biblical accounts of creation and
the flood.145 W. W. Prescott,146 Lynn H. Wood,147 and several others148 used
136
Ibid., 136-37 (italics in the original).

Ibid., 92.
138
139
Carlyle B. Haynes, Seventh-day AdventistsTheir Work and Teachings (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1940), 9.
140
W. E. Straw, Bible Doctrines for College Students (Berrien Springs, MI: Emmanuel Missionary College, 1944), 43.
141
Francis M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus: A Review of the Work and Teachings of Mrs.
Ellen Gould White, [enl. ed.] (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1944), 11-18.
142
In Ms. 16, 1888, Ellen White criticized the attempts to solve the supposed difficulties of
Scripture by distinguishing between that which is inspired and that which is not inspired.
143
In Ms. 24, 1886, appear Ellen Whites often quoted statements that the Bible is written by
inspired men and that it is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired.
144
Harold W. Clark, Crusader for Creation: The Life and Writings of George McCready Price
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1966); Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 72-101.
145
See e.g., George McCready Price, The Fundamentals of Geology and Their Bearing on the
Doctrine of a Literal Creation (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1913); idem, The New Geology
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923); idem, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1926); idem, A History of Some Scientific Blunders (New York:
Fleming H. Revell, 1930); idem, The Geological-Ages Hoax: A Plea for Logic in Theoretical Geology (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1931); idem, Modern Discoveries which Help Us to Believe
137
507

archeology in furthering the historicity of Bible accounts. Edwin R. Thiele demonstrated in his Ph.D. dissertation, The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and
Israel (1943),149 that many of the so-called historical discrepancies of the Bible
could actually be synchronized.150
Despite the seeds of disbelief in Ellen Whites prophetic ministry that
Ludwig R. Conradi sowed in Europe during the 1930s,151 several new books
came of the press in both the Unite States and Europe (between 1915 and 1950)
advocating the genuineness of her prophetic gift.152 Those books, however, were
more concerned with proving the prophetic gift of Ellen White than in discussing the actual nature of her inspiration.
Up to the 1950s Seventh-day Adventists were much concerned about defending the trustworthiness of Scripture from Modernist attacks. The inspiration
of the Scriptures was largely defined during that period in terms of infallibility
and verbal inspiration. However, from the 1950s Seventh-day Adventists would
(New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1934); idem, The Modern Flood Theory of Geology (New York:
Fleming H. Revel, 1935); idem, Genesis Vindicated (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1941);
idem, Common-Sense Geology (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1946).
146
W. W. Prescott, The Spade and the Bible: Archeological Discoveries Support the Old Book
(New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1933).
147
See e.g., Lynn H. Wood, Archeologys Contribution to Faith, 2-part series in Min, Jan.
1938, 18-19, 46; Feb. 1938, 13-14, 41-42; idem, The Bible and Archeology, 3-part series in Min,
April 1940, 23-26; May 1940, 16-18, 46; June 1940, 8-10; idem, Archeology and the Bible, 5-part
series in RH, Sept. 3, 1942, 3-4; Sept. 10, 1942, 5-7; Sept. 17, 1942, 5-7; Sept. 24, 1942, 4-6; Oct. 1,
1942, 3-5.
148
For a more detailed study of Seventh-day Adventist interest in biblical archeology, see Lloyd
A. Willis, Archaeology in Adventist Literature, 1937-1980, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral
Dissertation Series, vol. 7 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1982).
149
Edwin R. Thiele, The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel (Ph.D. diss., University
of Chicago, 1943). See also Edwin R. Thiele, The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (July 1944): 137-86; idem, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrews Kings: A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Chicago: U
of Chicago P, 1951).
150
See Siegfried H. Horn, From Bishop Ussher to Edwin R. Thiele, Andrews University
Seminary Studies (hereafter AUSS) 18 (Spring 1980): 37-49; Edwin R. Thiele, The Chronology of
the Hebrew Kings, Adventist Review (hereafter AtR), May 17, 1984, 3-5.
151
See Johann H. Gerhardt, L. R. Conradi, the Development of a Tragedy (Term paper, Andrews University, 1970; Daniel Heinz, Ludwig Richard Conradi: Missionar der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten in Europa (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987), 107-13.
152
See e.g., F. C. Gilbert, comp., Divine Predictions of Mrs. Ellen G. White Fulfilled (South
Lancaster, MA: Good Tidings Press, 1922); W. Mueller, Die geistlichen Gaben unter Bercksichtigung der Schriften von E. G. White (Hamburg: Advent-Verlag, n.d.); Carlyle B. Haynes, The Gift of
Prophecy (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1931); Arthur G. Daniells, The Abiding
Gift of Prophecy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936); William A. Spicer, The Spirit of Prophecy in the Advent Movement (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1937); Lewis H. Christian, The
Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1947); George K. Abbott, The
Witness of Science to the Testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy, rev. ed. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1948).
508

see the rise of new trends that would multiply during the 1970s and early 1980s.
Among those trends would be an increasing tendency to define inspiration from
factual studies on the person and writings of Ellen White.
The Emergence of New Trends (1950-1970)

A significant number of publications came out during the 1950s uplifting
the reliability of the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White. Of the books
dealing with Ellen White,153 Francis D. Nichols Ellen G. White and Her Critics
(1951)154 was the most outstanding one. In this 702-page volume, Nichol responded to almost all charges raised against Ellen White since the days of Canright.
It was also during the 1950s that a group of Seventh-day Adventist scholars
combined their efforts to produce a Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
(1953-1957).155 With the help of such groups as the Committee on Bible Chronology156 and the Committee on Problems in Bible Translations,157 the commentary integrated in a single project the views of its different contributors. It
was stated that while rejecting the position that the writers of Scripture wrote
under verbal dictation by the Holy Spirit, the commentary was carried out under the assumption that the writers of Scripture spoke and wrote according to
their own individualities and characteristics, as is indicated by the varied styles
of writing that they display, but free of the errors found in other writings.158
In the mid-1950s Carl W. Daggy completed his M.A. thesis, A Comparative Study of Certain Aspects of Fundamentalism with Seventh-day Adventism
(1955), in which he explicitly suggested that Seventh-day Adventists were not in
153
See e.g., Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1951); W. E. Read, The Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Church (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1952); Arthur W. Spalding, There Shines a Light: The Life and Work of Ellen G.
White (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1953); Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White:
Messenger to the Remnant (Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Publications, 1954); T. Housel Jemison, A Prophet Among You (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1955); Denton E. Rebok, Believe
His Prophets (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1956).
154
Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics.
155
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7 vols. (Washington,
DC: Review and Herald, 1953-57). Cf. Raymond F. Cottrell, The Untold Story of the Bible Conference, Sp 16 (Aug. 1985): 35-51.
156
See Committee on Bible Chronology minutes, GCA; Siegfried H. Horn to Alberto R.
Timm, Sept. 2, 1992.
157
See Committee on Problems in Bible Translation, Problems in Bible Translation: A Study of
Certain Principles of Bible Translation and Interpretation, together with an Examination of Several
Bible texts in the Light of these Principles (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1954).
158
[Siegfried H. Horn and Earle Hilgert], Lower and Higher Biblical Criticism, in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 5:177.
509

full agreement with the Fundamentalist view of inspiration.159 According to
Daggy,
Fundamentalists and Seventh-day Adventists are in agreement that
the Bible is the Christians sole unerring rule of faith and practice.
They sharply disagree, however, on the question of verbal inspiration.
The Fundamentalists generally take the position that the words of
Scriptures, as such, were inspired by God. Seventh-day Adventists,
on the other hand, believe that inspiration functioned in the minds of
the Bible writers, but that their choice of words was their own. At the
same time, they insist that this choice was guarded so that the writers
did not express error.160
Also in 1955, Roy F. Cottrell (not to be confused with Raymond F. Cottrell), a Seventh-day Adventist minister working in Escondido, California, argued that while inspiration did not impart a precise identity of expression or
memory, careful study reveals no discord in the records.161
In 1957 the book Questions on Doctrine came out affirming that Seventhday Adventists believed that the Bible not merely contains the word of God,
but is the word of God.162
In the following year (1958) Ellen Whites Selected Messages, book 1,
came off the press with an insightful section compiled from the authors writings
on inspiration.163
Although Seventh-day Adventists had traditionally held the propositional
view of revelation, a perceivable move towards the encounter view of revelation
was taken by Frederick E. J. Harder in his 506-page Ph.D. dissertation, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge as Conceived by Ellen G. White, defended in
1960 at New York University.164 In this dissertation Harder studied Ellen G.
Whites concept of revelation in the light of Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin,
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Augustus Strong, and Emil Brunner.
In interpreting Ellen Whites concept of revelation, Harder suggested that
White agreed with Brunners emphasis on the personal content of
revelationthat it consists in an I-Thou relationship in which God
communicates Himself to man. She did not share Brunners hesitancy
to accept the revelation of specific truths, for these, she believed,
contribute to the ultimate reconciliation between man and God.165
159
Daggy, Comparative Study of Certain Aspects of Fundamentalism with Seventh-day Adventism.
160
Ibid., 61.
161
Roy F. Cottrell, How the Bible Came to Us1: Gods Chosen Penmen, RH, March 3,
1955, 5.
162
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957), 27 (italics in the original).
163
E. G. White, Selected Messages, 1:13-76.
164
Frederick E. J. Harder, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge, as Conceived by Ellen G.
White (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1960).
165
Ibid., 485.
510

While acknowledging that Ellen White recognized the communication of
specific truths in the process of revelation, Harder did not emphasize her understanding of that communication as an actual impartation of propositional truths.
Although the line between the natural and the supernatural is almost nonexistent so far as the attainment of knowledge is concerned, there is still a need for
the Word of God because that Word was communicated by methods less subject to the distortions of sin than in natural revelation.166
In regard to the inspiration of Scripture, Harder stated that for Ellen White
inspiration reveals thought, but it does not set the mold for its form of expression.167 Harder recognizes, however, that for Ellen White the Bible is a correct
record of biography and history because (1) the scribes wrote under direction
of the Holy Spirit, and (2) this influence counteracted the human biases which
cause biographers to gloss over many derogatory facts about their heroes and
thus present only a partial truth.168 Inasmuch as both science and the Bible
have the same author, there can be no conflict between them when they are
rightly understood.169 Varieties of styles and subject matters are seen by Ellen White as a strength rather than weakness, because they provide varying
emphases to the many aspects of truth which would not be presented in a
toughly uniform work.170
Also in 1960, H. W. Lowe, general field secretary of the General Conference, responded to some of Walter Martins (a non-Adventist) charges against
Ellen White,171 saying that a God-chosen instrument may be inspired in writing, teaching, preaching, exhorting, but humanly fallible in the exercise of private judgment.172
Another slight move towards encounter revelation was taken by Jack W.
Provonsha, professor of Christian Ethics at Loma Linda University, in his article
Revelation and Inspiration, published in 1964 in the Andrews University
Seminary Studies.173 In this article, Provonsha spoke of encounter revelation in a
much friendlier way than traditional Seventh-day Adventists used to speak. The
overall tenor of the article seemed even to suggest a certain via-media position
166
Ibid., 3 (of the abstract), 486.

Ibid., 235. Cf. E. G. White, Selected Messages, 1:21-22.
168
Harder, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge, 150-51. Cf. E. G. White, Bible Biographies, RH, Jan. 22, 1880, 49; idem, Steps to Christ, 89.
169
Harder, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge, 405. Cf. Ellen G. White, The Ministry of
Healing (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1942), 462; idem, Education (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1952), 130.
170
Harder, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge, 234-35. Cf. E. G. White, Great Controversy
(1888), vi-vii.
171
See Walter R. Martin, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960), 90-114.
172
H. W. Lowe, Alleged Outside Influence on Ellen G. White, Min, Oct. 1960, 16.
173
Jack W. Provonsha, Revelation and History, AUSS 2 (1964): 109-19.
167
511

between the propositional concept of revelation and the encounter revelation
theory.
The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (1966) came off
the press with a specific entry on the Inspiration of Scripture.174 After quoting
the statement on the Holy Scriptures of the Fundamental Beliefs that was officially accepted since 1931,175 the entry stated that Seventh-day Adventists do
not believe in verbal inspiration, according to the usual meaning of the term, but
in what may properly be called thought inspiration.176 This statement was followed by some quotations from Ellen Whites writings.177
Also in 1966, Arthur L. White, secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate and
grandson of Ellen White, presented a lecture at Andrews University under the
title Toward a Factual Concept of Inspiration (published in 1973).178 In that
lecture A. L. White actually stated that
Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely fortunate in approaching the
question of the inspiration of the prophets. We are not left to find our
way, drawing all our conclusions from writings of two thousand
years or more ago that have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. With us it is an almost contemporary
matter, for we have had a prophet in our midst. It is generally granted
by the careful student of her works that the experience of Ellen G.
White was not different from that of the prophets of old.179
The same author mentioned that Ellen G. Whites statements concerning

the Bible and her work indicate that the concept of verbal inspiration is without
support in either the Bible writers or her own word.180 He declared also that
while the Scriptures provide an infallible revelation, the language used in
imparting it to mankind is not infallible.181 Following the non-Adventist Henry
Alford,182 A. L. White admitted the existence of factual discrepancies in details
of minor consequence.183
The Sabbath School Lesson for October 11, 1969, stated, however, that not
only the actual impartation of the divine revelation of truth came to the prophet
174
See Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1966), 585-86.
175
See General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Church Manual ([Washington, DC:
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists], 1963), 29.
176
Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, 585.
177
E. G. White, Selected Messages, 1:21; idem, Great Controversy (1911), vi.
178
Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1973),
13-48. See also idem, Toward a Factual Concept of Inspiration II (Ellen G. White Estate shelf
document, 1978).
179
A. L. White, Ellen G. White Writings, 15.
180
Ibid., 13.
181
Ibid., 23.
182
Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (London: Rivingtons, 1863), vol. 1,
pt. I, chap. I, 20-27.
183
A. L. White, Ellen G. White Writings, 26-48.
512

under the Spirits guidance and control (cf. Num 12:6; Hos 12:10; Rev 1:10),
but also that the communication to the people of the light received by the
prophet, was also directed by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pet 1:21; Rev 1:2, 11).184
George Burnside, Ministerial Association secretary of the Australasian Division, suggested in the Ministry megazine for January 1970 (1) that the very
nature of our God demands an infallible Bible (Titus 1:2); (2) that the Bible
claims infallibility (Prov 30:5); and (3) that Jesus, heavens glorious Commander, accepted the Scriptures as unerring (John 8:12; 17:17; 10:35; Matt
24:35).185
Aware of the new critical trends that were slowly leading Seventh-day Adventism into a crisis on inspiration, Edward Heppenstall, professor of Systematic
Theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, pointed out in Ministry magazine for July 1970 that Seventh-day Adventists
had simply aligned themselves with the evangelical or traditional position,
without having a clearly defined and developed doctrine of revelation and inspiration.186
After blaming the encounter theory of revelation for confusing revelation
with regeneration,187 Heppenstall affirmed that Gods communication is addressed to the mind of man in rational concepts and verbal propositions. By
inspiration, according to Heppenstall, God kept the Bible writers within the
conceptual truths of His revelation, so that both the writers and the message
were God directed (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17). Heppenstall affirmed also that Scripture
is without error in what it teaches, in the historical facts basic to the truths they
are intended to unfold, but not necessarily in the accuracy of words per se.188
Thus, the two decades under consideration (1950-1970) saw the emergence
of some moves toward encounter revelation and a thought view of inspiration
that was largely informed by a particular understanding of Ellen Whites phenomena. Not until the 1970s and early 1980s, however, did these trends reach
their climactic expression.
Challenges of the Historicization of
Inspired Writings (1970-1991)
While conflicting views of inspiration had been previously nurtured within
Seventh-day Adventism, it was in the early 1970s that Seventh-day Adventist
scholars became more controversially divided on this particular doctrine. The
main forums to foster those discussions were the Association of Adventist Fo-
184
Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, Senior Division, no. 298 (4th quarter 1969), 9.
G[eorge] Burnside, Our Infallible Bible, Min, Jan. 1970, 6.
186
Edward Heppenstall, Doctrine of Revelation and InspirationPart 1, Min, July 1970, 16.
See also idem, The Nature of Revelation (Unpubl. ms., n.d.), AHC.
187
E. Heppenstall, Doctrine of Revelation and InspirationPart 1, Min, July 1970, 17.
188
H. Heppenstall, Doctrine of Revelation and InspirationPart 2, Min, Aug. 1970, 28-29.
185
513

rums (officially established in the Fall of 1967)189 and its Spectrum magazine
(first issued in the Winter of 1969).190
As a non-official church publication, Spectrum assumed a revisionistcritical stand, which would eventually be rebuked by Neal C. Wilson, General
Conference president, at the 1984 Annual Council of the General Conference.191
Several articles advocating encounter revelation and the use of the historicalcritical method came out in Spectrum, setting the agenda for many discussions
on inspiration during the period under consideration (1970-1991).
Encounter Revelation. The theory of encounter revelation192 was a neoorthodox reaction to the traditional concept of propositional revelation. It perceives revelation as a subjective personal divine-human encounter rather than as
an objective communication of propositional truth. The Bible is, therefore, reduced to a mere human testimony of that encounter.
The Autumn-1970 issue of Spectrum came out with several articles dealing
with Ellen White. Among those articles was one by F. E. J. Harder,193 dean of
the School of Graduate Studies of Andrews University, in which he further
elaborated some basic concepts of his Ph.D. dissertation (1960).194 Seventh-day
Adventists were challenged by Harders article to move beyond the nineteenth
century Protestant view of special revelation as propositionally embedded
within an ancient book. For Harder, special revelation was a continuing conversation and communion between God and living people in personal and
communal bases.195
In 1975 Herold Weiss, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies of
St. Marys College, Indiana, and former assistant professor of New Testament at
189
See Alvin L. Kwiram, Introduction, Sp 1 (Winter 1969): 4-5.

D. R. McAdams, Shifting Views of Inspiration, Sp 10 (March 1980): 27-41. See also
Richard C. Osborn, The Establishment of The Adventist Forum, Sp 10 (March 1980): 42-58.
191
See Association of Adventist Forums and SpectrumNeal C. Wilson Statement, in 1984
Annual Council of the General Conference Committee: General Actions (Washington, DC: [General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists], 1984), 27-31; Myron K. Widmer, 1984 Annual CouncilPart III, AtR, Nov. 15, 1984, 4-5; Annual Council1984, Min, Dec. 1984, 23-24.
A response to Neal Wilsons statement was published by the Association of Adventist Forum
Board in Sp 15 (Dec. 1984): 28-30.
192
Classical expositions of the encounter revelation theory are found in Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946); and idem, Truth as Encounter (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1963).
For non-Seventh-day Adventist critical responses to encounter revelation, see e.g., Carl F. H.
Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958); Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical
RevelationThe Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1971); Carl F. H. Henry,
God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols. (Waco, TX: Word, 1976-83).
193
Frederick E. J. Harder, Divine Revelation: A Review of Some of Ellen Whites Concepts,
Sp 2 (Autumn 1970): 35-56. Cf. W. Paul Bradley, Ellen G. White and Her Writings, Sp 3 (Spring
1971): 51-52.
194
See Harder, Revelation, a Source of Knowledge.
195
F. E. J. Harder, Divine Revelation: A Review of Some of Ellen Whites Concepts, Sp 2
(Autumn 1970): 53-54.
190
514

Andrews University, moved even more explicitly toward the encounter theology
of neo-orthodoxy in his Spectrum article entitled Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration.196 Under the assumption that both revelation and
inspiration take place outside and prior to the Bible, Weiss argued that
to equate Gods Word with a book is the work of a corrupted faith
that sets up for itself an idol. The words of the book are the words of
the prophets which only tangentially reflect the Word of God. Nothing on earth is the ultimate expression of God. To make the Bible
such is bibliolatry, just another form of idolatry.197
Weiss rejected the verbal inspiration idea that the Bible has one Author because historical, grammatical and literary studies have shown that it is impossible to lump all the books of the Bible under one author. Based on such an
assumption Weiss argued that the Bible as a book can and must be studied as
any other book.198
Meanwhile, the most significant Seventh-day Adventist critical responses to
the encounter revelation theory were penned by Raoul Dederen during the
1970s. In a paper entitled Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, which
came out in the Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics (1974),199 Dederen qualified the idea of setting revelation-encounter over against revelation-doctrine
as a false dichotomy. While admitting that revelation is indeed an event, an
encounter, Dederen also explained that
ones encounter with Christ is effected only through hearing the prophetic and apostolic proclamation consigned to Scriptures. These
fragile words of Scripture passed down to us from the OT and the NT
writers are intrinsic to the revelational process. They are as true as the
Christ event they explicate, and they share in the once-for-all character of the divine revelation.200
After describing how the age of enlightenment questioned the Christian

traditional view of Scripture as a divine communication to man cast in written
form under the express inflow of the Holy Spirit, Dederen qualified any attempt to reject the testimony of Scripture regarding itself as unscientific.201
Also in 1974, Dederen read a paper entitled Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration at the 1974 Bible Conference. In
this paper Dederen again pointed out that revelation is more than a mere meet196
Herold Weiss, Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration, Sp 7, no. 3 (1975):
49-54. Cf. Frederick E. J. Harder, A Reply to Dr. Weiss, Sp 7, no. 3 (1975): 54-57.
197
H. Weiss, Revelation and the Bible, Sp 7, no. 3 (1975): 53.
198
Ibid., 49-50.
199
Raoul Dederen, Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, in Gordon M. Hyde, ed., A
Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics ([Washington, DC]: Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1974), 1-15.
200
Ibid., 7-8.
201
Ibid., 8-11.
515

ing or encounter, it is also a knowing, it implies a knowledge of the Lord and of
His will.202
The Historical-Critical Method. The historical-critical method203 is a
method of literary analysis used to study documents from the perspective of
their indebtedness to the particular socio-cultural milieu in which they were produced. The method grew out of the Enlightenment assumption (or basic presupposition) that history can be understood without taking into consideration supernatural intervention.
The question whether the method is adequate for the study of inspired
writings divided Seventh-day Adventist scholars eventually into three major
groups: (1) Those who accept the method with its basic presupposition; (2) those
who believe that a modified version of the method can be used apart from its
basic presupposition; and (3) those who hold that the method is unacceptable
because it cannot be isolated from its basic presupposition.
The existence of so-called modified versions of the classical historicalcritical method would require a much more detailed study to identify particular
understandings of the method by different Seventh-day Adventist scholars.
However, no classification of such variant understandings are provided in the
present article beyond the endeavor of pointing out a few Seventh-day Adventist
studies that attempt to foster the use of the method and criticisms of those attempts.
Historical-critical studies of Ellen Whites writings were encouraged by the
Autumn-1970 Spectrum article Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholarship, written by Roy Branson, then assistant professor of Christian Ethics at
Andrews University, and Herold D. Weiss, then assistant professor of New
Testament at the same university. In that article Branson and Weiss challenged
Seventh-day Adventists scholars to study Ellen Whites writings with a four-step
historical-critical hermeneutics, intended (1) to discover the nature of Mrs.
Whites relationship to other authors, (2) to recover the social and intellectual
milieu in which she lived and wrote, (3) to give close attention to the development of Ellen Whites writings within her own lifetime, and also to the devel202
Raoul Dederen, Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration, 8, in
North American Bible Conference, 1974 ([Washington, DC: Bible Research Committee], 1974).
203
Classical expositions of the historical-critical method are found in Johann S. Semler, Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon, 4 vols. (Halle: n.p., 1771-75); Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1994); Ernst Troeltsch, Ueber historische
und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie, in idem, Gesammelten Schriften (Aalen: Scientia,
1962), 2:729-53; Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
For non-Seventh-day Adventist criticisms to the historical-critical method, see e.g., Gerhard
Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis, [MO]: Concordia, 1977); idem, Biblical
Hermeneutics; Vern S. Poythress, Science and Hermeneutics: Implications of Scientific Method for
Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988); Thomas C. Oden, After Modernit...
What? Agenda for Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism
of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).
516

opment of the church, and (4) to apply in our day the words she spoke in her
day.204
Such hermeneutics set the trend for several historical-critical studies that
came out during this period (1970-1991)205 charging Ellen White of historical
errors,206 plagiarism,207 psychological trances,208 and theological pitfalls.209
204
Roy Branson and Herold D. Weiss, Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholarship, Sp
2 (Autumn 1970): 30-33. Cf. W. Bradley, Ellen G. White and Her Writings, Sp 3 (Spring 1971):
43-51.
205
For further study on the development of such revisionist studies, see e.g., Benjamin McArthur, Where Are Historians Taking the Church? Sp 10 (Nov. 1979): 9-14; D. R. McAdams,
Shifting Views of Inspiration, Sp 10 (March 1980): 27-41; Gary Land, From Apologetics to
History: The Professionalization of Adventist Historians, Sp 10 (March 1980): 89-100; Jonathan M.
Butler, Introduction: The Historian as Heretic, in Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: Ellen
G. White and the Origins of Seventh-day Adventist Health Reform, rev. and enl. ed. (Knoxville,
[TN]: U of Tennessee P, 1992), xxv-lxviii.
206
See e.g., William S. Peterson, A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen G. Whites Account
of the French Revolution, Sp 2 (Autumn 1970): 57-69; idem, An Imaginary Conversation on Ellen
G. White: A One-Act Play for Seventh-day Adventists, Sp 3 (Summer 1971): 84-91; idem, Ellen
Whites Literary Indebtedness, Sp 3 (Autumn 1971): 73-84; Ingemar Lindn, Biblicism, apokalyptik, utopi. Adventismens historiska utforming: USA samt dess svenska utveckling till o. 1939 (Uppsala: [U of Uppsala], 1971), 154-64; Carl G. Tuland, Six Thousand Years?, Sp 6, nos. 3/4 (1974):
65-70; Donald R. McAdams, Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: The Evidence from an
Unpublished Manuscript on John Huss (Unpubl. ms., Andrews University, 1974), EGWRC-AU;
idem, Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: A Study of the Treatment of John Huss in
Great Controversy, Chapter Six Huss and Jerome, rev. (Unpubl. ms., Southwestern Adventist
College, 1977), EGWRC-AU; Ingemar Lindn, The Last Trump: An Historico-Genetical Study of
Some Important Chapters in the Making and Development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978), 211-39; Eric Anderson, Ellen White and Reformation
Historians, Sp 9 (July 1979): 23-26; Donald Casebolt, Ellen White, the Waldenses, and Historical
Interpretation, Sp 11 (Feb. 1981): 37-43; Frank A. Knittel, The Great Billboard Controversy, Sp
23 (May 1993): 56.
Responses to the charges of historical errors in Ellen Whites writings are found, for instance,
in W. Bradley, Ellen G. White and Her Writings, Sp 3 (Spring 1971): 52-60; John W. Wood, The
Bible and the French Revolution: An Answer, Sp 3 (Autumn 1971): 55-72; Ronald Graybill, How
Did Ellen White Choose and Use Historical Sources? The French Revolution Chapter of The Great
Controversy, Sp 4 (Summer 1972): 49-53; idem, Analysis of E. G. Whites Luther Manuscript
([Washington, DC]: Review and Herald, [1977]); Jean Rouillard, Connaissance du catharisme, 6part series in Revue adventiste, April 1977, 8-9; May 1977, 8-9; June 1977, 8-9; Sept. 1977, 6-7;
Oct. 1977, 7-8, 13; Nov. 1977, 6-7; Dec. 1977, 7-8; Gerhard F. Hasel, A Review of the White Estate Paper The Role of Visions and the Use of Historical Sources in the Writing of the Great Controversy, Third Draft, Revised Oct. 24, 1977 (Unpubl. ms., Andrews University, [1977]),
EGWRC-AU; White Estate Staff, The Role of Visions and the Use of Historical Sources in the E.
G. White Writings, 5th draft (Unpubl. ms., Ellen G. White Estate, 1978), EGWRC-AU; Eric Anderson, Ellen White and Reformation Historians, Sp 9 (July 1979): 23-26; Arthur L. White, The
E. G. White Historical Writings, 7-part series in AtR, July 12, 1979, 4-7; July 19, 1979, 7-9; July
26, 1979, 5-10; Aug. 2, 1979, 7-11; Aug. 9, 1979, 7-10; Aug. 16, 1979, 6-9; Aug. 23, 1979, 6-9; Jean
Zurcher, Ellen G. White, the Waldenses and the Albingenses (1982), DF 2200-a, EGWRC-AU;
Milan Hlouch, John Huss in the Writings of Ellen G. White (Unpubl. ms., Prague, 1982),
EGWRC-AU; Warren H. Johns, Ellen G. White and Chronology (Unpubl. ms., [1983]), AHC;
517

idem, Ellen G. White and Biblical Chronology, Min, April 1984, 20-23; Jean Zurcher, A Vindication of Ellen White as Historian, Sp 16 (Aug. 1985): 21-31.
207
See e.g., [Walter T. Rea], A Comparison of the Writings of Mrs. E. G. White and John Harris - 1842, Daniel March - 1867, William Hanna - 1863, Alfred Edersheim - 1886 (N.p.: n.p.,
[1979]); idem, The White Lie (Turlock, CA: M & R Publications, 1982); idem, Sketches from the
Life of Paul: Forerunner of Acts of the Apostles (Unpubl. ms., 1982), AHC; idem, The Great
Controversy (Unpubl. ms., 1983), AHC; idem, Desire of Ages (Unpubl. ms., 1983), AHC; idem,
The Pirates of Privilege (Unpubl. ms., 1984), AHC; idem, The Makings of a Prophet (Unpubl.
ms., 1986), AHC; idem, Did the Prophet See Kings? (Unpubl. ms., 1988), AHC.
Responses to charges of plagiarism in Ellen Whites writings are found, for example, in Ellen
G. White Estate, The Desire of Ages (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document, 1979); Raymond F.
Cottrell, The Literary Relationship between The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White and The Life of
Christ, by William Hanna (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document, 1979); Walter F. Specht, The
Literary Relationship between The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White and The Life of Christ, by
William HannaPart II (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document, n.d.); Robert W. Olson, Ellen G.
Whites Use of Uninspired Sources (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document, 1980); Neal C. Wilson,
This I Believe About Ellen G. White, AtR, March 20, 1980, 8-10; Keith S. Parmenter, The Ellen
G. White BorrowingsWhat Are the Facts?, Australasian Record, July 28, 1980, 4; Shirley
Burton, Applications of Inspiration: What the Media Overlooked, Pacific Union Recorder, Nov.
10, 1980, 2, 4; Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White and Her Writings, AtR, Nov. 27, 1980, 7-9;
W[illiam] G. J[onhsson], Reflections on Ellen Whites Inspiration, ibid., 12-13; Robert W. Olson,
One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (Washington, DC: Ellen G.
White Estate, 1981), 64-111; John J. Robertson, The White Truth (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1981); Ron Graybill, Did Mrs. White Borrow in Reporting a Vision?, AtR, April 2, 1981,
7; Vincent L. Ramik, Memorandum of Law Literary Property Rights, 1790-1915 (Washington,
DC, Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd., Aug. 14, 1981); Editorial, Ellen Whites Use of Sources, AtR,
Sept. 17, 1981, 3; Editorial, There Simply Is No Case (interview with Vincent L. Ramik), ibid.,
4-6; Editorial, The Story Behind This Research (interview with Warren L. Johns), ibid., 7; Ron
Graybill, E. G. Whites Literary Work: An Update (An edited and annotated transcript of a tape
recording of presentations made in the morning worship services at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Nov. 15-19, 1981); Warren H. Johns, Ellen White Prophet of Plagiarist?,
Min, June 1982, 5-19; Ellen G. White Estate, The Truth About The White Lie, supplement to Min,
Aug. 1982; George Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1983); Fred Veltman, Full Report of the Life of Christ Research Project, 4 vols. ([Washington, DC: Ellen G. White
Estate], 1988); idem, The Desire of Ages Project, 2-part series in Min, Oct. 1990, 4-7; Dec. 1990,
11-15; Olson Discusses the Veltman Study (David C. Jarness interview with Robert W. Olson),
Min, Dec. 1990, 16-18.
208
See e.g., Lindn, Biblicism, apokaliptik, utopi, 103; Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of
Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row, 1976); Lindn, Last Trump, 148;
Ronald D. Graybill, The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of
the Nineteenth Century (Ph.D. diss., John Hopkins University, 1983); Bernadine L. Irwin, A Psychohistory of the Young Ellen White: A Founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Ph.D. diss.,
United States International University, 1984); Molleurus Couperus, The Significance of Ellen
Whites Head Injury, Adventist Currents, June 1985, 16-33; Dennis E. Waite, A Psychoanalytic
and Archetypical Examination of Two Seminal Dreams and Visions of Ellen G. White (Ed.D. diss.,
Western Michigan University, 1993).
Responses to charges of psychological trances in Ellen Whites writings are found, for instance, in Ron Graybill, Prophetess of Health: A Review (Ellen G. White Estate shelf document,
1976); Ellen G. White Estate, A Discussion and Review of Prophetess of Health (Washington, DC:
Ellen G. White Estate, 1976); idem, A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health (Washington, DC:
518

In the Fall of 1979, Benjamin McArthur, professor of American History at
Southern Missionary College, pointed out in his Spectrum article, Where Are
Historians Taking the Church? that Seventh-day Adventism was witnessing
the first great age of Adventist historical revisionism. McArthur explained that
the new generation of Seventh-day Adventist revisionists worked under the
common presupposition that the cultural milieu in which Ellen White lived and
worked to a large degree shaped her writings on history, prophecy, health and,
by implication, every other topic she discussed. As a result, the nature of her
inspiration and her authority in the church were at issue.210
McArthur explained that since orthodox belief and critical historical judgment are incompatible, the problem is not that the Adventist historian lacks
faith in Gods providential leading, but that there is no way for them to include it
in historical explanation.211 Thus, the use of the historical-critical method led
Ellen G. White Estate, 1976); R[obert] W. Olson, Physicians Say Ellen Whites Visions Not Result
of Epilepsy, AtR, Aug. 16, 1984, 4; Donald I. Peterson, Visions or Seizures: Was Ellen White the
Victim of Epilepsy? (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1988).
209
See e.g., Lindn, Biblicism, apokaliptik, utopi, 68-84; idem, Last Trump, 92-105; Rolf J.
Poehler, ... and the Door Was Shut: Seventh-day Adventists and the Shut-Door Doctrine in the
Decade after the Great Disappointment (Term paper, Andrews University, 1978); Desmond Ford,
Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion
Press, 1980), 333-425, A170-A245, A256-A261; Ingemar Lindn, 1844 and the Shut Door Problem
(Uppsala: Distributed by Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982); Ingemar Lindn, Adventismen vid
Skiljevgen ([Sweden]: n.p., 1983), 59; Thomas R. Steininger, Konfession und Sozialisation: Adventistische Indentitt zwischen Fundamentalismus und Postmoderne (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993), passim.
Some of the charges of theological pitfalls in Ellen Whites writings are responded to in Gerard
Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), passim; Robert W. Olson, The Shut Door Documents (Ellen G. White Estate shelf
document, 1982); Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White and the Shut Door Question: A Review of the
The Experience of Early Seventh-day Adventists Believers in Its Historical Context, rev. ed. (Ellen
G. White Estate shelf document, 1982); idem, Ellen G. White (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1985), 1:256-70; Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, special issue of Min, Oct. 1980; Olson,
One Hundred and One Questions, 8-31; Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher, eds., The
Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, DC: [Biblical Research Institute], 1981); William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 1 ([Washington, MD: Biblical Research Institute],
1982); Frank B. Holbrook, ed., Symposium on Daniel, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol.
2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986); idem, ed., The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and
the Nature of Prophecy, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Institute, 1986); idem, ed., Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 4 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989); idem, ed., Doctrine of
the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 5 (Silver Spring,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989); idem, ed., Symposium on RevelationBook 1, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992); idem,
ed., Symposium on RevelationBook 2, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 7 (Silver
Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992).
210
B. McArthur, Where Are Historians Taking the Church? Sp 10 (Nov. 1979): 9.
211
Ibid., 11.
519

Seventh-day Adventist revisionists not only to deal with Ellen Whites writings
as historically conditioned212 but also to a large extent to give up the great
controversy theme as a philosophy of history.213
In March 1980 Donald McAdams, president of Southwestern Adventist
College, published an article in Spectrum under the explanatory title Shifting
Views of Inspiration: Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970s. In that article
McAdams explained how critical studies of Ellen White during the 1970s tried
to show that Ellen Whites works were not entirely original (because she
copied from other sources) and were not infallible (because she made
statements that were not correct).214
The use of the historical-critical method was also encouraged in regard to
the study of Scripture. Of special significance was the section entitled Ways to
Read the Bible of the December 1982 issue of Spectrum magazine.215 There
John C. Brunt, professor of New Testament at Walla Walla College, argued that
the use of the historical-critical method does not necessarily lead to liberal conclusions. Brunt further suggested that
virtually all Adventist exegates [sic] of Scripture do use historicalcritical methodology, even if they are not willing to use the term. The
historical-critical method deserves a place in the armamentarium of
Adventists who are serious about understanding their Bibles.216
Larry G. Herr, then professor of Old Testament in the seminary of the Far
Eastern Division in the Philippines, argued in the same line that the historicalcritical method of Bible study, used properly, can be a valid and powerful tool
for Seventh-day Adventists.217
Meanwhile, some of the most significant Seventh-day Adventist criticisms
of the historical-critical method were penned by E. Edward Zinke and Gerhard
F. Hasel. During the 1970s E. E. Zinke, then research assistant and assistant
secretary of the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference, came
out with several articles on the subject.218 Of special significance was his supplement to the Ministry of October 1977, entitled A Conservative Approach to
Theology. After surveying different approaches to theology from a historical
perspective, Zinke stated that
212
Ibid., 12-13.
For further study of Ellen Whites philosophy of history, see Gil G. Fernandez, Ellen G.
Whites Philosophy of History (M.A. thesis, Philippine Union College, 1968); Joseph Battistone,
The Great Controversy Theme in E. G. White[s] Writings (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1978).
214
D. R. McAdams, Shifting Views of Inspiration, Sp 10 (March 1980): 27-41.
215
See special section Ways to Read the Bible, Sp 13 (Dec. 1982): 30-62.
216
John C. Brunt, A Parable of Jesus as a Clue to Biblical Interpretation, ibid., 42.
217
Larry G. Herr, Genesis One in Historical-Critical Perspective, ibid., 51.
218
See e.g., E. Edward Zinke, Postreformation Critical Biblical Studies, in Hyde, ed., Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, 67-87; idem, A Conservative Approach to Theology, supplement
to Min, Oct. 1977, 24A-24P; idem, Guiding the Ship of Truth, Min, Dec. 1978, 14-15.
213
520

method in theology must not be determined by an a priori consideration of the nature of man, of the universe, or of any aspect of these
two. Rather, method must be determined totally by Scripture itself.
The method by which Scripture is studied must not be the same as
that applied to human literature. Since Gods revelation is distinct
from that which takes place within the human sphere, the method applied to its interpretation is not the same as that which is applied to
what is produced within the human sphere. Thus the nature of revelation itself must be considered within the context of the method for its
interpretation.219
In 1980 Gerhard F. Hasel, professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University, published his book Understanding the Living Word
of God, in which he criticized the historical-critical method for its totally immanent view of history on the horizontal level without any vertical, transcendent
dimension.220 Hasel not only charged that method for undermining the authority of the Scriptures, but also argued in favor of an approach to Scripture that
could recognize its divine, supernatural element.
In 1985 the Biblical Research Institute published G. F. Hasels book, Biblical Interpretation Today, in which the author strongly criticized the historicalcritical method for disallowing divine, supernatural intervention in history.221
Under the assumption that the Bible must remain the master and the method the
servant, Hasel argued that in the study of Scripture the method must always be
subject to the judgment of Scripture. Thus the study of Scripture must follow a
method that derives its philosophical conceptuality, its norms and procedures
from Scripture itself.222
Concerns about the use of the historical-critical method by Seventh-day
Adventist scholars also led the 1986 Annual Council of the General Conference,
which convened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote a document on Methods of Bible
Study.223 In this official document Adventist Bible students were urged to
avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method. Under the assumption that human
reason is subject to the Bible, not equal to or above it, the document stated that
even a modified use of the historical-critical method that retains the principle
219
E. E. Zinke, A Conservative Approach to Theology, supplement to Min, Oct. 1977, 24A-
24P.
220
Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1980), 24-25.
221
Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today: An Analysis of Modern Methods of Biblical
Interpretation and Proposals for the Interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God ([Washington,
DC: Biblical Research Institute], 1985), 97.
222
Ibid., 99.
223
See Methods of Bible Study Committee (GCC-A)Report, AtR, Jan. 22, 1987, 18-20;
Methods of Bible Study, Min, April 1987, 22-24. Cf. Raymond F. Cottrell, Blame It on Rio: The
Annual Council Statement on Methods of Bible Study, Adventist Currents, March 1987, 32-33.
521

of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to
Adventists.224
The use of the historical-critical method was also criticized in several articles by Gerhard F. Hasel,225 Leon I. Mashchak,226 Richard M. Davidson,227 and
Mario Veloso.228
Further Developments. A significant variety of definitions of inspiration
have been proposed in Seventh-day Adventist circles since 1970. Those definitions oscillated between attempts to accommodate apparent discrepancies of
inspired writings and concerns of uplifting the infallibility of those writings
against the challenges imposed by revisionist studies.
In 1972 Rene Noorbergens Ellen G. White: Prophet of Destiny described
the prophetic ministry in strong terms. According to Noorbergen,
true prophet is not a psychic who performs with the aid of a mental
or spiritual crutch, but is someone who has no degree of freedom
either in turning in or controlling the prophetic impulses or prophetic
recall. These impulses are superimposed over the prophets conscious
mind by a supernatural personal being, having absolute knowledge of
both past and future, making no allowance for error or human miscalculation.229
Also in 1972, Hans Heinz Glaubenslehren der Heiligen Schrift came out
with a special chapter on The Holy Scripture.230 After rejecting the theory of
verbal inspiration, Heinz defined inspiration as a positive divine impact on the
mind, will, and imagination of the author, who uses his means in order to write
as God desires, whereby the author is under the guidance of God, which prevents error.231
Of special significance was the 1974 Bible Conference, which was summoned to focus on the Bible as the foundation of Adventist faith and doctrine,
224
Methods of Bible Study Committee, AtR, Jan. 22, 1987, 18.

Gerhard F. Hasel, The Rise and Wane of Biblical Authority, Adventist Perspectives (hereafter AP) 1 (Nov. 1987): 8-16; idem, The Crisis of the Authority of the Bible as the Word of God,
JATS 1 (Spring 1990): 16-38; idem, The Origin of the Biblical Sabbath and the Historical-Critical
Method: A Methodological Test Case, JATS 4 (Spring 1993): 17-46.
226
Leon I. Mashchak, The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Study, AP 1 (Nov. 1987): 3235; idem, Canonical Criticisman Olive Branch or a Trojan Horse?, AP 2 (Summer 1988): 61-67.
227
Richard M. Davidson, The Authority of Scripture: A Personal Pilgrimage, JATS 1 (Spring
1990): 39-56.
228
Mario Veloso, Modern Scientific-Critical MethodA Testimony, AP 6, no. 2 (1992): 2935.
229
Rene Noorbergen, Ellen G. White: Prophet of Destiny (New Canaan, CT: Keats, 1972), 21
(italics in the original).
230
Hans Heinz, Glaubenslehren der Heiligen Schrift (Bern: Europaeisches Institut fuer Fernstudium, 1972), 25-45.
231
Ibid., 30. (Translated by Winfried Vogel.) Cf. idem, Leben aus der Zukunft: Wende der
ZeitWandlung der Welt (Hamburg: Saatkorn-Verlag, 1989), 159-60.
225
522

and to study sound principles of hermeneutics.232 The doctrine of inspiration
was addressed in Raoul Dederens two papers, Revelation, Inspiration, and
Hermeneutics233 and Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration.234
In the latter Dederen defined inspiration as
the controlling influence that God exerts over the human instrument
by whom His revelation is communicated. It has to do with the reception, by the prophet, of the divine revelation and the accuracy
with which it is transmitted, whether in an oral or a written form. At
the same time it gives the record of revelation its authority and validity for us.235
To this he added,
We can hardly believe that God, having performed the mighty acts
and revealed their true meaning and import to the minds of prophets
and apostles would leave the prophetic and apostolic ministry to take
care of itself. The same Holy Spirit, we hold, who called them to
share Gods knowledge and plans, also aided their efforts to convey
such a revelation to those to whom they ministered.236
Dederen also pointed out the existence of a tendency in certain circles to

caricature as some sort of a dictation theory the position of those who believed that the Bible was fully inspired in all its parts. While recognizing
that on some occasions God actually spoke and man just recorded the words
(Gen 22:15-18; Exod 20:1-17), Dederen stated that in the main inspiration
functioned in such a flexible way as to allow for human personalities.237
After quoting Ellen Whites classic statement, It is not the words of the
Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired, Dederen raised the crucial question, Since the thoughts rather than the words are inspired, shall we
conclude that we are at liberty to treat the text of Scripture as being of little importance? Answering the question, he explained that
some, in fact, do maintain that God suggested the thoughts and the
general trend of His revelation, leaving the prophet free to express
them in his own language, as he liked. Quite apart from the fact that
ideas are not most usually transferred by means other than words, this
scheme ignores the fact that if the thought communicated to a prophet
is of the essence of a revelation, the form in which it is expressed is
232
K[enneth] H. W[ood], The 1974 Bible Conference, RH, Aug. 1, 1974, 2. See also Gordon
M. Hyde, Church Holds Historic Bible Conference, RH, Aug. 15, 1974, 4-6.
233
Dederen, Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, in Hyde, ed., Symposium on Biblical
Hermeneutics, 1-15.
234
Dederen, Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration, in North
American Bible Conference, 1974.
235
Ibid., 9 (italics supplied).
236
Ibid., 9-10.
237
Ibid., 11.
523

of prime significance. The exegetical study of the Scriptures in their
original language would lose much of its meaning if God has not
guided the prophet in the writing of his message.238
In regard to Ellen Whites position on the matter, Dederen asserted that

Ellen White herself, who so clearly emphasizes that the thoughts
rather than the words of a prophet are inspired, stipulates: While I
am writing out important matters, He is beside me helping me... and
when I am puzzled for a fit word to express my thoughts, He brings it
clearly and distinctly to my mind. I tremble for fear, adds the servant of the Lord, lest I shall belittle the great plan of salvation by
cheap words... Who is sufficient for these things? Everything
points to the fact that God who imbued the prophets minds with
thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also
watched over them in their attempts to express infinite ideas and
embody them in finite vehicles of human language.239
Such a view of inspiration does not nullify, according to Dederen, the

significant human authorship of the biblical writings. It simply affirms that the
prophetic message as we find it in Scripture is the testimony of God.240
In 1977, Dederen came out with an insert in Ministry, under the title Ellen
Whites Doctrine of Scripture.241 While declaring that Ellen White did not support the views of verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs,
Dederen explained that Ellen Whites concept of inspiration is that the whole
man is inspired, not just his words.242
Meanwhile, Arthur White prepared two series of articles for the Review,
trying to counteract some of the tensions unleashed by revisionist studies of Ellen White. The first series came out in early 1978, under the general title Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration.243 In this series Arthur White suggested again that Seventh-day Adventists were in a better position to understand
the modus operandi of inspiration, because they still had the autographs of a
modern prophet (Ellen White), while those of the Bible were no longer available.244
White admitted that while the revelation of Gods will is authoritative and
infallible, the language used in imparting it to mankind is human and hence is
imperfect.245 He saw the prophet as under the influence of the Spirit of God not
238
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 13.
240
Ibid.
241
R. Dederen, Ellen Whites Doctrine of Scripture, supplement to Min, July 1977, 24F-24J.
242
Ibid., 24G-24H.
243
Arthur L. White, Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration, 4-part series in AtR, Jan.
12, 1978, 4-6; Jan. 19, 1978, 7-9; Jan. 26, 1978, 6-8; Feb. 2, 1978, 6-8.
244
A. L. White, Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration3, RH, Jan. 26, 1978, 6. Cf.
idem, Ellen G. White Writings, 15.
245
A. L. White, Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration3, RH, Jan. 26, 1978, 6.
239
524

only in receiving his message through the visions but also in bearing testimony. Despite certain occasions in which the very words to be used are impressed upon his mind by the Spirit of God, the influence of the Spirit does not
lead the prophet to the point of being mechanically controlled, or of being
forced into a mold.246
Arthur White began his second series, The E. G. White Historical Writings (Summer of 1979),247 explaining in a euphemistic way that probably never
before, since the death of Ellen White in 1915, had Seventh-day Adventists been
so interested in the questions of inspiration in general and the inspiration of
Ellen White in particular, as well as Ellen Whites sources for the Conflict of
the Ages books in general, and The Great Controversy and The Desire of Ages
in particular. He promised that this series of articles would lead the readers
some distance from the narrow concepts held by some of a mechanical, verbal
inspiration according to which Ellen White wrote only what was revealed to her
in vision or dictated to her by the Holy Spirit.248
In recommending this series, Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review, suggested the readers to keep in mind four facts: (1) Inspired writings do not
come to us untouched by human hands; (2) in communicating with the human family, God inspired persons, not writings; (3) inspiration involves a
variety of methods in communicating truth and Gods will; and (4) the message of an inspired writer does not depend for its authority on whether it is accompanied by the label, This is Gods Word. Wood also pointed out that because Satan is today making supreme efforts to undermine confidence in the
writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, we feel convinced that the end of all things is
near.249
Within the context of the contemporary revisionist challenges, Seventh-day
Adventists published, in 1980, two major consensus documents in order to confirm their faith in the trustworthiness of the inspired writings. The first one, titled Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible, was produced over a period of
several years, involving scientists, theologians, administrators, teachers, and
others throughout the world church. Although numerous revisions in its text
had been made taking into consideration the suggestions received, the document
appeared in the Adventist Review of January 17 with a special note asking for
additional comments and suggestions to be addressed to W. Duncan Eva, a
vice-president of the General Conference.250
246
A. L. White, Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration2, RH, Jan. 19, 1978, 8.

Arthur L. White, The E. G. White Historical Writings, 7-part series in AtR, July 12, 1979,
4-7; July 19, 1979, 7-9; July 26, 1979, 5-10; Aug. 2, 1979, 7-11; Aug. 9, 1979, 7-10; Aug. 16, 1979,
6-9; Aug. 23, 1979, 6-9.
248
A. L. White, E. G. White Historical Writings1, AtR, July 12, 1979, 4.
249
K[enneth] H. W[ood], An Important Series about Ellen G. White, AtR, July 12, 1979, 1112 (italics in the original).
250
General Conference Officers, About These Documents, AtR, Jan. 17, 1980, 8
247
525

The document under consideration recognized that the writers of the Holy
Scripture were inspired by God with ideas and concepts, but He did not dictate
His message to them word by word, except in certain instances in which God or
an angel spoke or voices were heard by the prophet. In regard to the difficulties
of the Bible, the same document warned that
it is well to remember that such difficulties in Scripture may be the
result of imperfections of human understanding, or lack of knowledge
of the circumstances involved. Some difficulties may be resolved by
further research and discovery. Others may not be understood or resolved until the future life. However, we must guard against sitting in
judgment on the Scriptures. No man can improve the Bible by suggesting what the Lord meant to say or ought to have said.251
The second document (far more influential than the first one) was the new
1980 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, officially accepted by the delegates of
the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church at the 1980 General Conference
session in Dallas, Texas. The new statement on the Scriptures (statement 1) of
that document reads as follows:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word
of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who
spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this
Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.
They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the
authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of
Gods acts in history.252
The new statement on the gift of prophecy (statement 17) affirmed the following:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry
of Ellen G. White. As the Lords messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church
comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear
that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience
must be tested.253
251
Study Documents on Inspiration and Creation, AtR, Jan. 17, 1980, 9, 10.
Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day AdventistsChurch Manual Revision, AtR, May 1,
1980, 23.
253
Ibid., 25-26. The original English wording of this particular statement has been slightly
changed in some translations. The expression as the Lords messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth was translated, for instance, into German (Adventecho, June 1,
1981, 8) as die Schriften dieser Botin des Herrn sind eine fortwirkende, bevollmchtigte Stimme der
Wahrheit (the writings of this messenger of the Lord are a continuing, authorized voice of truth)
and into French (Revue adventiste [France], April 1981, 4) as les crits de cette messagre du Seigneur sont une source constante de vrit qui fait autorit (the writings of this messenger of the
Lord are a constant source of truth which is authoritative). The word authoritative was translated
252
526

Also published in 1980, Gerhard F. Hasels book Understanding the Living
Word of God had a whole chapter on the inspiration of Scripture.254 In that
chapter Hasel argued that the witnesses of Peter (2 Pet 1:19-21) and Paul (2 Tim
3:16) attest that all Scripture is inspired by God. Having received the divine
revelation, the human penman was inspired, according to Hasel, by the Holy
Spirit to communicate these divine ideas and thoughts accurately and authoritatively in the language of men. The divine authorship of Scripture was seen as
the source for both the unity of Scripture and the supreme authority of
Scripture.255
In 1981 William G. Johnsson, associate editor of the Adventist Review,
stated in his Ministry article, How Does God Speak?, that defining inspiration is like catching a rainbow. When we have put forth our best efforts, there
will remain an elusive factor, an element of mystery.256
Also in 1981, Roger W. Coon, associate secretary of the Ellen G. White
Estate, began a three-part series on Inspiration/Revelation in the Journal of
Adventist Education.257 In this series Coon advocated plenary (thought) inspiration, in exclusion to both verbal inspiration and encounter inspiration.258
In addressing the subject of infallibility, Coon mentioned two theories: (1)
The strait-jacket theory, in which true prophetic writings are regarded as
prevented from making any type of error, and (2) the intervention theory,
which holds that
if in his humanity a prophet of God errs, and the nature of that error
is sufficiently serious to materially affect (a) the direction of Gods
church, (b) the eternal destiny of one person, or (c) the purity of a
doctrine, then (and only then) the Holy Spirit immediately moves the
prophet to correct the error, so that no permanent damage is done.259
Taking his stand on the side of the intervention theory, Coon stated that
in inspired writings, ancient [the Bible] and modern [the writings of Ellen
White], there are inconsequential errors of minor, insignificant detail. He then
lists a few examples of errors in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White.
into both Spanish (Manual de la Iglesia, rev. ed. [Montemorelos, Mexico: Associacin Editorial
Interamericana, 1984], 38) and Portuguese (Manual da Igreja Adventista do Stimo Dia [Santo Andr, SP, Brazil: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 1981], 35) as autorizada (authorized).
254
Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God, 66-82.
255
Ibid.
256
William G. Johnsson, How Does God Speak? Min, Oct. 1981, 4.
257
Roger W. Coon, Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works, 3-part series in
Journal of Adventist Education (hereafter JAE) 44 (Oct.-Nov. 1981): 17-32; (Dec. 1981-Jan. 1982):
17-31; (Feb.-March 1982): 17-33.
258
R. W. Coon, Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It WorksPart I, JAE 44 (Oct.Nov. 1981): 24-30.
259
R. W. Coon, Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It WorksPart II, JAE 44 (Dec.
1981-Jan. 1982): 18-19 (italics in the original).
527

Among the errors in Scripture are mentioned (1) the allusion to Jeremiah (instead of Zechariah) as the author of the quotation found in Matthew 27:9, 10 (cf.
Zech 11:12, 13); and (2) the different wordings of the inscription placed at the
top of the cross (cf. Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). The errors of Ellen White are seen as including (1) a reference to the Paradise Valley
Sanitarium as having forty rooms (instead of thirty-eight); and (2) a mentioning
of the apostle Peter (instead of Paul) as the author of the saying, the love of
Christ constraineth us (2 Cor 5:14).260
Rejecting the theory of degrees of inspiration (or revelation) and degrees
of authority, Coon stated that Ellen G. White is best understood in the role of
the literary but noncanonical prophets of the Bible. Thus, though the writings
of Ellen White have the same level of inspiration and authority as the Bible, they
are not an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.261
In response to the charges of plagiarism raised against Ellen White, George
E. Rice, then associate professor of New Testament at Andrews University, in
1983 published his book Luke, a Plagiarist? In this book the author suggested
that the inspiration of Scripture can only be fully understood from the perspective of two distinctive models of inspiration.
The first of those models was termed prophetic model, by which Rice referred to divine revelation coming to the prophet through dreams, visions,
thought illumination as seen in the psalms and the wisdom literature, and the
recording of these theophanies (divine manifestations) under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit.262
While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended to see the prophetic
model as a big umbrella under which we gather all of the books of the Bible,
Rice pointed out that this model is inadequate to explain the variations in the
gospel portrait, as well as the content of 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles,
and other Old Testament books. Room was, therefore, left for a second model
of inspiration that would function as the complement to and companion of the
prophetic model.263
That second model of inspiration is called the Lucan model (cf. Luke 1:14), which Rice saw as based on researchreading and oral interviews.264
Rice explained that
the Bible writer who operated under this model was an author and a
theologian in his own right. As an author he shaped and arranged the
260
See ibid., 19, 24-26.

R. W. Coon, Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It WorksPart III, JAE 44 (Feb.March 1982): 20-21.
262
G. E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist?, 11-12. George Rice borrowed and redefined the term prophetic model from Paul Achtemeier. See Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 30-32.
263
G. E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist?, 11, 19.
264
Ibid., 25.
261
528

material he researched so that the end product expressed his interests.
As a theologian he worked with the material so that the end product
expressed his theological understanding. Yet the Spirit guided
throughout the whole process.265
In 1985 Richard Rice, professor of Theology at Loma Linda University, included a whole chapter on The Doctrine of Revelation in his book The Reign
of God.266 Regarding inspiration as one aspect of the larger dynamic of
Gods communication to human beings, the author pointed out that the doctrine of revelation should not be reduced to the phenomenon of inspiration.267
Richard Rice saw the biblical doctrine of inspiration as containing two important ideas: (1) The divine authority of Scripture, and (2) the divine-human
character of Scripture. The Bible, according to Rice, is not a combination of
the words of God and the words of men but rather the word of God in the
words of men.268
The same author regarded the doctrine of inerrancy as unbiblical because:
(1) It seems to overlook the human dimension of Scripture; (2) it sometimes
leads to distorted and unconvincing interpretations of the Bible; and (3) it
miscasts the fundamental purpose of Scripture. He then stated that Seventhday Adventists have never advocated biblical inerrancy, although they supported
the divine authority and complete reliability of the Scriptures.269
In 1988 the Ministerial Association of the General Conference came out
with a representative exposition of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, entitled Seventhday Adventists Believe...270 About inspiration of the Scriptures, this book emphasized (1) that God inspired mennot words271; (2) that the Bible is the
written Word of God; (3) that the Bible does not teach partial inspiration or
degrees of inspiration272; and (4) that the guidance of the Holy Spirit guarantees the Bibles trustworthiness.273 While the Bible is regarded as the supreme
standard, the writings of Ellen White are seen as (1) a guide to the Bible, (2)
a guide in understanding the Bible, and (3) a guide to apply Bible principles.274
265
Ibid., 27.
Richard Rice, The Reign of God: An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day
Adventist Perspective (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1985), 20-46. Cf. Norman R. Gulleys
review, AUSS 27 (Autumn 1987): 312-14.
267
R. Rice, Reign of God, 30-31.
268
Ibid., 25-26 (italics in the original).
269
Ibid., 33.
270
Seventh-day Adventist Believe... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Washington, DC: Ministerial Association of the General Conference of SDAs, 1988).
271
Ibid., 8.
272
Ibid., 11.
273
Ibid., 10.
274
Ibid., 227-28.
266
529

Noteworthy also are a few theses and dissertations defended at the Seventhday Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, during the late 1980s
and early 1990s. Among them are Peter van Bemmelens Issues in Biblical
Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield (1987);275 Ray C. W. Roennfeldts Clark H.
Pinnocks Shift in His Doctrine of Biblical Authority and Reliability: An Analysis and Critique (1990);276 Joseph Karanjas Inerrancy and Sovereignty: A
Case Study on Carl F. H. Henry (1990);277 James H. Burrys An Investigation
to Determine Ellen Whites Concepts of Revelation, Inspiration, The Spirit of
Prophecy, and Her Claims about the Origin, Production and Authority of Her
Writings (1991);278 as well as Jerry A. Moons William Clarence (W. C.)
White: His Relationship to Ellen G. White and Her Work (1993);279 and Frank
M. Hasels Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch:
An Investigation and Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use (1994).280
Peter van Bemmelen provided some insights on the relationship between
the claims and the phenomena of Scripture in the following paragraph:
Once Scripture is accepted as the only legitimate starting-point and
source of reference in our quest, we must face up to the question
whether the effort to establish the doctrine of inspiration by letting
the Bible speak for itself should proceed primarily from the multifarious phenomena of the content and structure of Scripture or
whether it should start from the explicit assertions of the Biblical
writers or whether both should receive equal standing. It is evident
that the decision we take at this junction is crucial. We suggest in
view of considerations presented earlier that the inherent logic of the
principle to let Scripture speak for itself requires that the teachings
(or assertions, claims, or whatever other terms may be used) should
be given priority over the phenomena. We use advisedly the word
priority, for the phenomena cannot and should not be ignored. Whatever conclusions may be reached from a thorough study of the assertions must be examined and evaluated in the light of the phenomena,
but just as surely, the phenomena must be examined and evaluated in
the light of the conclusions derived from the assertions.281
275
Peter M. Van Bemmelen, Issues in Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield (Th.D. diss.,
Andrews University, 1987); idem, Issues in Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield, Andrews
University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1987).
276
Ray C. W. Roennfeldt, Clarck H. Pinnocks Shift in His Doctrine of Biblical Authority and
Reliability: An Analysis and Critique (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1990); idem, Clark H.
Pinnock on Biblical Authority: An Evolving Position, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 16 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1993).
277
Joseph Karanja, Inerrancy and Sovereignty: A Case Study on Carl F. H. Henry (M.Th.
thesis, Andrews University, 1990).
278
Burry, Investigation to Determine Ellen Whites Concepts of Revelation, Inspiration...
279
Jerry Allen Moon, William Clarence (W. C.) White: His Relationship to Ellen G. White
and Her Work (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1993); idem, W. C. White and Ellen G. White.
280
Frank M. Hasel, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch: An Investigation and Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1994).
281
Van Bemmelen, Issues in Biblical Inspiration, 377-78.
530

But all those discussions previously mentioned have proved themselves unable to bring general agreement to the Seventh-day Adventist scholarly circles
on the matter of inspiration. Those debates would actually continue through the
1990s.
Conflicting Views of Inspiration (1991-2000)
Influential in bringing the debate on inspiration down from the scholarly
realm into the church level was Alden Thompsons Inspiration: Hard Questions,
Honest Answers (1991).282 The author, a professor of Biblical Studies at Walla
Walla College, regarded revelation in this book as some kind of special input
from God, a message from Him to His creatures on earth and as a visible or
audible intervention by God. He defined inspiration as the Spirits special
urging of a messenger to speak or write and a means to indicate that the Holy
Spirit has been active in a special way. While acknowledging that all Scripture
is given by inspiration (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), Thompson suggested that the most
crucial point of his book was perhaps the idea that the Bible does not say that
all Scripture was given by revelation.283
Thompson evidently intended to come up with a model of inspiration that
could provide enough room for both difficulties and cultural accommodations.
Room for errors, mistakes, and fatal contradictions in the Bible (although
Thompson tried to avoid such words)284 was provided by the human side of his
incarnational model. Cultural accommodations found special space in his
casebook (as opposed to codebook) approach to Scripture.
For Thompson, the one great law of love, the two commandments to love
God and to love man, and the ten commandments form a pyramid of law that
embodies the eternal principles of Gods kingdom, which are normative to all
mankind at all times everywhere. All other biblical laws are applications of
those principles in time and place.285
His casebook approach to Scripture also provided for a high position for
human reason. According to him,
282
Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 1991). Cf. Fernando Canales review, AUSS 29 (Autumn 1991): 278-79; Peter van
Bemmelens review, College and University Dialogue (hereafter CUD) 3, no. 3 (1991): 27-28; Gosnell L. O. R. Yorkes review, Min, Dec. 1991, 28; Norman R. Gulleys review, Min, Dec. 1991, 2830; Clark H. Pinnock, Alden Thompsons Inspiration: Why Is It a Cause Clbre? Sp 23 (Jan.
1994): 51-52; Charles Bradford, Bradford on Thompsons Inspiration, ibid., 53-54.
See also Alden Thompson, Adventists and Inspiration, 4-part series in AtR, Sept. 5, 1985,
5-7; Sept. 12, 1985, 13-15; Sept. 19, 1985, 7-9; Sept. 26, 1985, 12-15. Cf. Fannie E. Diller, Bertrand
Young, and Myron J. Houghton, in Adventists and Inspiration, AtR, Nov. 7, 1985, 4.
283
Thompson, Inspiration, 47-48 (italics in the original).
284
Cf. ibid., 144, 249, 263-64.
285
Ibid., 114-15.
531

the casebook approach allows usindeed, forces usto recognize
that revelation and reason must work together. Revelation always
deals with specific cases. Reason, in dialogue with the Spirit, determines which of those cases are most helpful in informing the decisions we make day by day.286
Thompsons book was controversial from the very beginning. While some
endorsed the book,287 others strongly opposed it.288 The most significant response to it was the Adventist Theological Societys Issues in Revelation and
Inspiration (1992),289 with articles by Raoul Dederen (two),290 Samuel Koranteng-Pipim,291 Norman R. Gulley,292 Richard A. Davidson,293 Gerhard F.
Hasel,294 Randall W. Younker,295 Frank M. Hasel,296 and Miroslav M. Kis.297
The basic consensus of those authors was that Alden Thompsons model of
inspiration was based on a partial reading of the Bible and of the writings of
Ellen White. Frank Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson even pointed out in the Issues
Preface that Thompsons study illustrated the fruits of the historical-critical
method, which had been regarded by the 1986 Annual Council as unacceptable for Adventists.298
While the previous developments of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of
inspiration have been largely confined to the phenomena of Scripture and the
writings of Ellen White, Fernando Canale, professor of Systematic Theology at
Andrews University, in the Summer of 1993 began a five-part series in the Andrews University Seminary Studies, proposing a new approach to the doctrine
286

See e.g., G. L. O. R. Yorkes review, Min, Dec. 1991, 28.
288
See e.g., N. R. Gulleys review, Min, Dec. 1991, 28-30.
289
Frank Holbrook and Leo van Dolson, eds., Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, Adventist
Theological Society Occasional Papers, vol. 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society
Publications, 1992).
290
Raoul Dederen, The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon according to the Bible Writers,
in ibid., 9-29; idem, On Inspiration and Biblical Authority, in ibid., 91-103.
291
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, An Analysis and Evaluation of Alden Thompsons Casebook/Codebook Approach to the Bible, in ibid., 31-67.
292
Norman R. Gulley, An Evaluation of Alden Thompsons Incarnational Method in the
Light of His View of Scripture and Use of Ellen White, in ibid., 69-90.
293
Richard M. Davidson, Revelation/Inspiration in the Old Testament: A Critique of Alden
Thompsons Incarnational Model, in ibid., 105-35.
294
Gerhard F. Hasel, Reflections on Alden Thompsons Law Pyramid within a Casebook/Codebook Dichotomy, in ibid., 137-71.
295
Randall W. Younker, A Few Thoughts on Alden Thompsons Chapter: Numbers, Genealogies, Dates, in ibid., 173-99.
296
Frank M. Hasel, Reflections on the Authority and Trustworthiness of Scripture, in ibid.,
201-20.
297
Miroslav M. Kis, Revelation and Ethics: Question of Distance, in ibid., 221-36.
298
Frank B. Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson, Preface, in ibid., 7.
287
532

of revelation and inspiration.299 Canale suggested that a new theological model
about the origin of Scripture could be developed on the basis of an understanding of God and of human nature derived from Scripture rather than from
Greek philosophical concepts.
Canale criticized conventional Roman Catholic and Protestant models of
revelation-inspiration for their indebtedness to a timeless view of God and to an
immortalist concept of human soul. He explained, in regard to the concept of
God, that
when God is conceived to act within a timeless realm, the theological
content of Scripture (which is brought into being by God) will also
pertain to the timeless realm. In this case, the historical side of
Scripture is considered to belong, not to its divine cause, but rather to
the human condition necessary for the expression of its divinely
(timelessly) originated content. Thus, the Scriptures are said to be
historically conditioned. On the contrary, the concept that God is
capable of acting genuinely in history (that is, historically) leads to
a conception of the biblical writings as being historically constituted. According to the former view, the historical side of Scripture
is external and incidental to its religious and theological contents; according to the latter view, the historical side of Scripture belongs to
the very essence of its divinely revealed and inspired contents.300
The development of a new model of revelation-inspiration based on the sola

Scriptura principle would require, according to Canale, the paradigmatic shift to
a temporal-historical conception of Gods being and actions that allows Him
to act historically in history. The multiform divine revelatory activity in
history was viewed as comprising theophanic, direct writing, prophetic, historical, and existential patterns,301 supporting the notion that the whole Bible is
revealed and the whole Bible is inspired.302 For Canale, this change of paradigm would require also a new exegetical methodology (different from both
the classic historical-grammatical method and the liberal historical-critical
method).303 But Canale has not yet demonstrated what this new methodology
299
Fernando Canale, Revelation and Inspiration, 5-part series in AUSS The Ground for a
New Approach, 31/2 (Summer 1993): 91-104; Method for a New Approach, 31/3 (Autumn
1993): 171-94; The Classical Model, 32/1-2 (Spring/Summer 1994): 7-28; The Liberal Model,
32/3 (Autumn 1994): 169-95; The Historical-Cognitive Model, 33/3 (Spring 1995): 5-38.
300
F. Canale, Revelation and Inspiration: The Ground for a New Approach, AUSS 31/2
(Summer 1993): 98.
301
F. Canale, Revelation and Inspiration: The Historical-Cognitive Model, AUSS 33/1
(Spring 1995): 9, 16.
302
F. Canale, Revelation and Inspiration: Method for a New Approach, AUSS 31/3 (Autumn
1993): 189. See also idem, Revelation and Inspiration: The Historical-Cognitive Model, AUSS
33/1 (Spring 1995): 27, 31, 33.
303
F. Canale, Revelation and Inspiration: The Historical-Cognitive Model, AUSS 33/1
(Spring 1995): 34.
533

would be or shown how his new historical-cognitive model handles the issue
of alleged factual errors in Scripture.
Equally noteworthy is the Spring 1994 issue of the Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, which came out with several papers on inspiration presented at the 1993 Scholars Convention of the Adventist Theological Society,
which convened in Washington, D.C., on November 18, and Silver Spring, MD,
on November 19-20, 1993. Those papers were the following: By What Authority? by C. Raymond Holmes;304 New Testament Use of the Old Testament,
by Richard M. Davidson;305 Inspiration and the Imprecatory Psalms, by Angel
M. Rodriguez;306 Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible, by Gerhard F.
Hasel;307 Revelation/Inspiration, Church, and Culture, by Jack J. Blanco;308
Inspiration, the Natural Sciences, and a Window of Opportunity, by John T.
Baldwin;309 The Inspiration of Scripture in the Writings of Ellen G. White, by
Gerard Damsteegt;310 and History of Inspiration in the Adventist Church (18441915), by Alberto R. Timm.311 The overall tenor of those papers is the emphasis on the infallibility of Scripture, with specific responses to some charges
raised against the trustworthiness of the Bible.
In 1995, Robert S. Folkenberg, then president of the General Conference,
stated in the Adventist Review that the Adventist historic position on inspiration
strengthens the church. According to his own words,
Our unequivocal, historic emphasis upon the divine inspiration and
trustworthiness of Scripture has strengthened our church. It has
helped us resist the error of treating some parts of Scripture as Gods
Word, while ignoring or rejecting other parts. If we accept it as Gods
Word, we must accept it all, whether or not we like what it says. To
us the Scriptures should be the ultimate revelation of Gods will for
our lives.312
Several other publications helped to keep alive the ongoing debate on inspiration during the second half of the 1990s. One of the most influential landmarks
in that debate was Samuel Koranteng-Pipims conservative-provocative book
304
C. Raymond Holmes, By What Authority?, JATS 5/1 (Spring 1994): 1-13.

Richard M. Davidson, New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ibid., 14-39.
306
Angel M. Rodriguez, Inspiration and the Imprecatory Psalms, ibid., 40-67.
307
Gerhard F. Hasel, Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible, ibid., 68-105.
308
Jack J. Blanco, Revelation/Inspiration, Church, and Culture, ibid., 106-30.
309
John T. Baldwin, Inspiration, the Natural Sciences, and a Window of Opportunity, ibid.,
131-54.
310
P. Gerard Damsteegt, The Inspiration of Scripture in the Writings of Ellen G. White, ibid.,
155-79.
311
Alberto R. Timm, History of Inspiration in the Adventist Church (1844-1915), ibid., 18095.
312
Robert S. Folkenberg, Standing on Solid GroundThe Bible, Adventist Review, Aug. 3,
1995, 22.
305
534

Receiving the Word (1996).313 Pipim, from Ghana, West Africa, who was at that
time a Ph.D. candidate in Systematic Theology at Andrews University, called
the attention of his readers to a significant variety of historical-critical attempts
to undermine the authority of the Scriptures within the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. He also tried to uplift the trustworthiness of the Bible by demonstrating
that many of its alleged errors are either distortions added in the transmission
process of its original text, or shortcuts in our present understanding of its true
meaning.314
That not everybody fully agreed with Pipims approach is evident from
George R. Knights response to it. Knight, a professor of Church History at the
Theological Seminary of Andrews University, criticized Pipim (1) for still believing in inerrancy and verbalism315 and (2) for using the well-known debaters technique in which at one extreme it sets up the right position, which
is very, very right, while at the other extreme is the wrong position, which is
very, very wrong.316 Knights own view of inspiration was more clearly exposed in his book Reading Ellen White (1997), in which he argued (1) that inspiration is not infallible, inerrant, or verbal;317 (2) that several factual mistakes can be found in the inspired writings;318 and (3) that those writings are
infallible only as a guide to salvation.319 The views of Pipim, on one side, and
of Knight, on the other, are representative of the two main conflicting poles
around which gravitate the contemporary discussions on inspiration.
Meanwhile, the concept of models of inspiration was much further developed in 1996 by Juan Carlos Viera, director of the Ellen G. White Estate, in his
Adventist Review article entitled The Dynamics of Inspiration. While George
Rice had spoken only of two models, Viera suggested the following six: (1) the
visionary model, in which God speaks through prophetic visions and dreams;
(2) the witness model, in which God inspires the prophet to give his or her own
account of things seen and heard; (3) the historian model, in which the message
did not come through visions and dreams, but through research; (4) the counselor model, in which the prophet acts as an adviser to Gods people; (5) the
313
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact
Our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle (Berrien Springs, MI: Berean Books, 1996). This book was also
published in Spanish under the title Recibiendo la Palabra: Cmo afectan a nuestra fe los nuevos
enfoques bblicos? trad. David Gulln (Buenos Aires: Asociacin Casa Editora Sudamerica, 1997).
Cf. George R. Knights and George W. Reids reviews in Min, Dec. 1997, 30-31; Aecio E. Caruss
review in Espigas (Argentina) 1, nos. 1-21, 8-10.
314
See Pipim, Receiving the Word, 279-304.
315
George R. Knight, The Case of the Overlooked Postscript: A Footnote on Inspiration, Min,
Aug. 1997, 11.
316
George R. Knights review in Min, Dec. 1997, 30.
317
George R. Knight, Reading Ellen White: How to Understand and Apply Her Writings
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997), 105.
318
Ibid., 111, 113-18.
319
Ibid., 110.
535

epistolary model, in which the prophet writes greetings, names, circumstances
or even common things that do not require a special revelation; and (6) the literary model, in which the Holy Spirit inspires the prophet to express his or her
intimate feelings and emotions through the means of poetry and prose, as in the
psalms. According to Viera, the prophet can make orthographical or grammatical mistakes, as well as other kinds of language imperfections such as lapsus linguae (a slip of the tongue) or lapsus memoriae (a slip of the memory),
but the Holy Spirit is in control of the inspired message and always corrected
His messengers in matters important to the church.320 Vieras models reflect
more the sources of the inspired content than its actual transmission process.
Two years later (1998), Vieras book on inspiration, The Voice of the Spirit,
tried to explain the relationship between a divine message, perfect and infallible, and a human messenger, imperfect and fallible, in the process of prophetic
inspiration.321 Commenting on Ellen Whites classic statement, It is not the
words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired... ,322 Viera suggested that,
taken with all the seriousness that this declaration deserves, it means
that expressions such as the pen of inspiration, and the inspired
writings are only symbolic expressions that refer to the message the
writings communicate and not to the text itself of the prophetic declarations. Expressions such as these will continue to be usedand
there is nothing wrong with thatbecause we all understand what
they mean: that what we may be reading at the moment comes from a
mind inspired by the Spirit of God. Therefore, we speak of inspired
paragraphs or inspired books or inspired letters. Nevertheless,
those expressions, taken literally, would contradict the prophetic
thought that tells us that it is not the text, the words, or the language
of a declaration that is inspired, but the message these communicateand that message comes from heaven.323
Support for the notion of a non-inspired prophetic text was found in the fact
that Ellen White herself allowed C. C. Crisler and H. H. Halls chapter on The
Awakening of Spain to be added to the Spanish version of her book The Great
Controversy.324 Under the assumption that this chapter shares the same nature of
the book itself, Viera was not afraid of stating that the chapter ended up being
320
Juan Carlos Viera, The Dynamics of Inspiration, AtR, special edition, 30 May 1996, 22-28
(italics within quotation marks in the original).
321
Juan Carlos Viera, The Voice of the Spirit: How God Has Led His People Through the Gift
of Prophecy (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1998), [7]. This book was also published in Spanish under
the title La Voz del Espritu: Cmo Dios ha guiado a su pueblo a travs del don de profeca (Nampa,
ID: Pacific Press, 1998). Cf. Alberto R. Timms review, CUD 11/1 (1999): 33.
322
See note 66, above.
323
Viera, The Voice of the Spirit, 81-82.
324
See C. C. Crisler and H. H. Hall, El despertar de Espaa, in Elena G. de White, El Conflicto de los Siglos durante la Era Cristiana, 10th ed. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1977),
252-77.
536

part of the text (not inspired) of a book that contains the message (inspired) of
God.325 This might be easily seen as a significant move toward the liberal position that the Bible is not the Word of God but only contains that Word.
Also in 1998 came Herbert E. Douglasss 586-page textbook titled Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White. Rejecting verbal,
inerrant inspiration for implying that the prophet would have to function simply
as a recording machine or as a court stenographer, Douglass argued for
thought inspiration because God inspires the prophet, not his or her words.
But the divinely revealed message, or content, can still be regarded as infallible and authoritative.326
Of special significance in the late 1990s were Leo R. van Dolsons Adult
Sabbath School Lessons for the first quarter of 1999, dealing specifically with
the subjects of revelation and inspiration,327 and its companion book titled
Show and Tell (1998).328 Van Dolson, who had been one of the editors of the
book Issues in Revelation and Inspiration (1992),329 defined inspiration in his
lessons as the means by which God safeguarded the production and preservation of the Bible in order for it to become an infallible and sufficient guide to
salvation.330 But these widespread Bible lessons, as balanced in their content as
they could be, were unable to downplay the Adventist academic tensions about
inspiration.
Noteworthy also are some articles on inspiration published in Ministry
magazine between 1999 and 2000. The September 1999 issue of that magazine
came out with a slightly edited version of Alberto R. Timms paper presented at
a plenary session of the First Jerusalem International Bible Conference, in June
1998.331 Timm, director of the Brazilian Ellen G. White Research Center and
professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Brazil Adventist University - Campus 2, suggested that further Adventist studies on the nature and
authority of the Bible should take into consideration (1) the symphonic nature
of inspiration, avoiding the classical polarization under the labels of verbal
inspiration on one side and thought inspiration on the other; (2) the wholistic
scope of inspiration, recognizing that the overall thematic interrelationship of
the Scriptures makes it almost impossible for someone to speak of the Bible in
325
Viera, The Voice of the Spirit, 94 (parentheses in the original).

Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White
(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1998), 16.
327
Leo R. Van Dolson, Studies on Revelation and Inspiration: God Shows and Tells, Adult
Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, no. 415 (Jan.-March 1999).
328
Leo R. Van Dolson, Show and Tell: How God Reveals Truth to Us (Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 1998).
329
See note 289, above.
330
Van Dolson, Studies on Revelation and Inspiration, 23 (lesson for January 10).
331
Alberto R. Timm, Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of Inspiration (Paper
presented at the First International Jerusalem Bible Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, June 10, 1998),
AHC.
326
537

dichotomous terms as being reliable in some topics and not in others; and (3) a
respectful approach to the inspired writings, that allows us to emphasize more
the content of the divine messages than their human containers and more the
core of these messages than their side issues.332
A new appeal for a cultural-conditioned understanding of inspiration was
made by Richard W. Coffen in his 2-part series A Fresh Look at the Dynamics
of Inspiration, published in Ministry magazine of December 1999 and February
2000.333 Coffen, vice-president of editorial services at the Review and Herald
Publishing Association, was the editor of Alden Thompsons Inspiration: Hard
Questions, Honest Answers (1991),334 and showed himself very close to Thompsons theory of inspiration. Besides pointing out several factual errors in the
Scriptures,335 Coffen also argued for a divine-human dichotomous reading of the
Scriptures. He says,
So, contrary to what some suggest, it is not heretical to deal with
merely the human aspect of the Bible in isolation from its divine side,
or vice versa. Thats not heresy but simple necessity. The heresy occurs when we deny the unity, wholeness, and complementarity principle in relation to inspiration.336
At the end of the second part of Coffens article appeared an editors note
saying that a response to Richard Coffens two part series, by Ekkehardt
Mueller, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, would appear in the April 2000 issue of Ministry.337 In that response, Mueller explained that an inductive approach to
Scripture, as used by some scholars,
looks for discrepancies and takes notice of these phenomena. Oftentimes, it does not allow for harmonization even where it seems to be
possible and advisable. It is preoccupied with finding differences
rather than agreement and unity. And it always has only parts of the
entire puzzle.338
332
Alberto R. Timm, Understanding Inspiration: The Symphonic and Wholistic Nature of
Scripture, Min, Sept. 1999, 12-15. The basic content of this article was published also in Portuguese
as O Adventismo e a Inspirao (Ministrio [Brazil], March-April 1999, 9-12) and in Spanish as
Hacia un entendimiento adventista de la inspiracin (Logos [Argentina] 3 [April 1999]: 8-13).
333
Richard W. Coffen, A Fresh Look at the Dynamics of Inspiration, 2-part series in Min,
Dec. 1999, 9-14, 29; Feb. 2000, 20-23.
334
See note 282, above.
335
Coffen, [A Fresh Look at the Dynamics of Inspiration] - Part 2, Min. Feb. 2000, 20-22.
336
Ibid., 22.
337
Editors note, in ibid., 23.
338
Ekkehardt Mueller, The Revelation, Inspiration, and Authority of Scripture, Min, April
2000, 22.
538

Thus, instead of an inductive versus deductive approach, one should proceed inductively and deductively, taking into consideration not only the phenomena of the biblical texts but also the self-testimony of Scripture.339
Mueller argued also that
the human and the divine in Scripture are not complementary. They
are integrated. Consequently, different sets of tools in order to study
the human side and the divine side of the Bible cannot do justice to
the unified nature, the truly incarnational character of Scripture.340
Another major appeal for a historically conditioned understanding of inspiration can be found in Raymond F. Cottrells paper, Inspiration and Authority
of the Bible in Relation to Phenomena of the Natural World. Presented originally at the revisionist 1985 Conference on Geology and the Biblical Record
sponsored by the Association of Adventist Forums (publisher of Spectrum
magazine), in West Yellowstone, Montana, this paper appeared in print only in
2000, as a chapter of that conferences symposium, titled Creation Reconsidered.341 Cottrell, a former editor of the Review and Herald Publishing Association and more recently an editor of Adventist Today, tried to solve some of the
basic tensions between faith and reason, and between the Bible and natural sciences and secular history, by suggesting a clear distinction between the inspired
message of the Bible and the uninspired form in which it comes to us. Yet
the inspired message on record in the Bible is viewed by Cottrell as culturally conditioned and historically conditioned. For him, historical conditioning permeates the entire Bible. It is not incidental, nor is it exceptional and unusual; it is the invariable rule.342
Under the assumption that in matters of science, the Bible writers were on
a level with their contemporaries, Cottrell could suggest that on these matters
our understanding should be informed by the more reliable data provided by
modern science. His attempt to harmonize the Bible account of Creation with
modern science led him to the conclusion that at an unspecified time in the
remote past, the Creator transmuted a finite portion of his infinite power into the
primordial substance of the universeperhaps in an event such as the Big
Bang.343
The notion that the words and forms of expression in the Bible were historically conditioned to their time and perspective led the same author, elsewhere, to the conclusion that the Genesis Flood did not extend beyond the
known lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea. He even stated that only by
339
Ibid., 22, 24.

Ibid., 24.
341
Raymond F. Cottrell, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible in Relation to Phenomena of
the Natural World, in James L. Hayward, ed., Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and
Theological Perspectives (Roseville, CA: Association of Adventist Forums, 2000) 195221.
342
Ibid., 19596, 199, 200, 205, 218.
343
Ibid., 199, 219.
340
539

reading our modern worldview of all the earth [Gen 7:3] back into the Hebrew
text can the idea of a world-wide flood be established.344 This represents, indeed, a major departure from the traditional Adventist understanding of a universal flood, as described in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary,345 of
which Cottrell himself was an associate editor.
But also published in the year 2000 was the most comprehensive official
exposition of the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of inspiration. That exposition, titled Revelation and Inspiration, was prepared by Peter M. van
Bemmelen, professor of Theology at Andrews University, and submitted to the
criticisms of the Biblical Research Institute Committee (BRICOM), sponsored
by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, prior to its publication as
a chapter of the major Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000).346
The subject of inspiration is addressed in that chapter from the perspective of (1)
its biblical interpretation, (2) its main historical expositions throughout the
Christian era, and (3) Ellen G. White comments on the topic.
Van Bemmelen defines inspiration as the supernatural process by which
the prophets were moved and directed by the Spirit of God, in putting the
words of the Lord in written form. While recognizing that the locus of inspiration is in the inspired author, the same author argues that there is little doubt
that thoughts as well as words are involved in this process, in such a way that
those words are words from God, fully human and fully divine.347 Furthermore, because all of Scripture is Gods word and every word that comes from
God is true, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that all of Scripture is
truth.348
In regard to the so-called factual errors of the Bible, van Bemmelen recognizes that no serious student of the Bible will deny that there are difficulties
in Scripture, but he adds that these difficulties do not affect the clarity of
Scripture. He warns his readers that the claims and allegations that there are
numerous errors, contradictions, historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, and other
flaws in the Scriptures constitute a serious indictment against the truthfulness
of Holy Scripture. He also alerts his readers that through exalting the authority
of human reason, tradition, and science, many have come to deny or to limit the
344
Raymond F. Cottrell, Extent of the Genesis Flood, in Hayward, ed., Creation Reconsidered, 275.
345
Cf. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1:257: This description [of Gen 7] renders
utterly foolish and impossible the view set forth by some that the Flood was a local affair in the
Mesopotamian valley.
346
Peter M. van Bemmelen, Revelation and Inspiration, in Raoul Dederen, ed., Handbook of
Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 2000), 2257.
347
Ibid., 3840.
348
Ibid., 43.
540

authority of Scripture. But the Bible itself warns repeatedly against anything
or anybody that would undermine or usurp the authority of the Word of God.349
Such conflicting views of inspiration as the ones mentioned above demonstrate that Seventh-day Adventist scholars are still divided in their personal understanding of inspiration.
Summary and Conclusion
Different views on the nature of inspiration have been advocated within the
Seventh-day Adventist Church during the 150 years of its history.
Sabbatarian Adventists inherited William Millers high view of Scripture as
the infallible and unerring Word of God. That Seventh-day Adventists kept that
view of Scripture during the first four decades of their history (1844-1883) is
evident from both their responses to infidel challenges against the Bible and
their uncritical reprint in the Review of several articles by non-Seventh-day Adventist authors who fostered an inerrant view of Scripture.
From the early 1800s up to the time of Ellen Whites death (1915) traditional views of inspiration were challenged by individuals who either had been
personally reproved by Ellen White or had been shocked by the idea that an inspired writing could be improved by its author. During that same period Ellen
White wrote some of her most significant statements on inspiration. Responses
to higher criticism show that Seventh-day Adventists continued to regard the
Scriptures as the infallible and trustworthy Word of God.
The first five years after the death of Ellen White saw the development of
an identity crisis about the nature of Ellen Whites inspiration. That crisis
reached its climax at the 1919 Bible and History Teachers Council. The years
following that council viewed Seventh-day Adventists on the side of Fundamentalism in uplifting the trustworthiness of the Bible in the context of the
Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy. Responses to Modernism demonstrate
that Seventh-day Adventists still kept their view of Scripture as the infallible and
unerring Word of God.
In the early 1950s new trends began to develop within Seventh-day Adventism that assumed an increasingly radical tone in the early 1970s. Such issues as
encounter revelation and the use of the historical-critical method influenced the
Seventh-day Adventist discussions about inspiration. The main forum to foster
discussions of those issues was Spectrum magazine.
Despite the emergence of new trends, no significant changes were made in
Seventh-day Adventist official statements on inspiration. One has to avoid,
therefore, the generalizing tendency of superimposing individual views or segment trends from the scholarly world upon the whole church.
Noticeably, the last few decades have seen the development of a factual and
apologetic doctrine of inspiration largely shaped by revisionist studies of Ellen
349
Ibid., 4244.
541

White. As insightful as such developments can be, the time has come for Seventh-day Adventists to move beyond apologetic concerns into the task of developing a more constructive theology of inspiration.
Holding to the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, Seventh-day Adventists should seriously take more into consideration what the Bible and the writings of Ellen White have to say about themselves. As the end-time remnant,
Seventh-day Adventists should not give up their identity as a people that lives
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt 4:4, RSV).
Alberto R. Timm is director of the Brazilian Ellen G. White Research Center and professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Brazil Adventist College (Central
Campus). He holds a Ph.D. in Adventist Studies from Andrews University (1995). Having
published many scholarly and popular articles in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, Alberto is presently guiding several master theses and doctoral dissertations for the LatinAmerican Adventist theological Seminary.
542

Alberto Timm, A History of SDA Views On Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration, 1844 2000, JATS

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Alberto Timm, A History of SDA Views On Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration, 1844 2000, JATS

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 10/1-2 (1999): 486542.

Article copyright 2000 by Alberto R. Timm.

A History of Seventh-day Adventist

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Miller, Apology and Defence, 5-6.

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

G. I. B[utler], Inspiration.No. 9, RH, May 27, 1884, 344.

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

Although Ellen White recognized the existence of transmission errors and

While admitting that the human language of Scripture is imperfect, she

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

As previously seen, it was during the period under consideration

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

As far as infallibility is concerned, A. G. Daniells stated that it is not right

A. G. Daniells, in ibid., 14-15.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

Wirth, Battle of the Churches, 7.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In 1927 Carlyle B. Haynes, president of the South American Division,

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

Ibid., 136-37 (italics in the original).

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

The Emergence of New Trends (1950-1970)

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

Ibid., 3 (of the abstract), 486.

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The same author mentioned that Ellen G. Whites statements concerning

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

See Alvin L. Kwiram, Introduction, Sp 1 (Winter 1969): 4-5.

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

After describing how the age of enlightenment questioned the Christian

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

E. E. Zinke, A Conservative Approach to Theology, supplement to Min, Oct. 1977, 24A-

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Methods of Bible Study Committee, AtR, Jan. 22, 1987, 18.

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

Dederen also pointed out the existence of a tendency in certain circles to

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

In regard to Ellen Whites position on the matter, Dederen asserted that

Such a view of inspiration does not nullify, according to Dederen, the

TIMM: A HISTORY OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST VIEWS

A. L. White, Toward an Adventist Concept of Inspiration2, RH, Jan. 19, 1978, 8.